JK 766 

.P5 

1913 



63d Congress ) ^**Py ^ 
1st Session ) 




SENATE 



/ Document 
\ No. 50 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS 



MESSAGE FROM THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING 

>/ ■ , 

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMIS- 
SION ON ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY 
ON THE APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINT- 
MENTS MADE FROM THE REGISTERS OF 
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE 
APPORTIONED SERVICE AT WASHINGTON 




May 29, 1913. — Read, referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the 
Contingent Expenses of the Senate, and ordered to be printed 



WASHINGTON 
1913 




9. OF D, 






MESSAGE. 



To the Senate: 

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of May 26, 1913, 
requesting the President "to send to the Senate, if not incompatible 
with the public interest, a copy of the report submitted to him on 
March 25, 1913, by the President's Commission on Economy and 
Efficiency on the apportionment of appointments made from the 
registers of the Civil Service Commission of the apportioned service 
at Washington/' I transmit herewith a copy of the said report. 

WooDROw Wilson. 

The White House, May 29, 1913. 



MEMORANDUM. 



A brief statement of the subject matter of this report and of the 
recommendations will be found in the introduction. 



TABLE OF OOIsTTEI^TS. 



Page. 

I. Introduction 7 

II. Methods adopted by the Civil Service Commission for determining 

relative order of States and Territories for certifying eligibles 14 

III . Method of certifying from State registers 17 

IV. Questions raised as to whether results obtained are in harmony with 

purpose of act 21 

V. Lower marks obtained on examination as evidence of less fitness 26 

VI . Rating in examination as index of future efficiency 44 

VII. Conclusions 50 

APPENDIXES. 

A. Correspondence relating to qualifications of eligibles certified by the Civil 

Service Commission 51 

B. Letter of the Civil Service Commission dated January 28, 1913 62 

C. Letter of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency, dated March 25, 

1913 65 

5 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

Maech 25, 1913. 
The President: 

The Commission on Economy and Efficiency has the honor to sub- 
mit the following report on the apportionment of appointments in 
the District of Columbia made from the registers of the Civil Service 
Commission : 

I. INTBODTJCTION. 

The fundamental purpose of the civil service act is to provide for 
more efficient administration by making provision for appointments 
based on merit. In this law it was provided that the rules to be 
made pursuant to the act should provide for apportionment of 
appointments. 

Appointments to the public service * * * in the departments at Washington 
shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District of 
Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained by the last preceding census. 

This direction as to the rules to be made was, however, subordinated 
in specific terms to the dominant purpose of the act by the qualifying 
phrase : 

As nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant. 

One of the conditions of good administration prescribed by the act 

itself is : 

That it shall be the duty of the said commissioners * * * to aid the Presi- 
dent * * * in preparing suitable rules for carrying this act into effect * * _ *• 
And, among other things, said rules shall provide * * * for open, competitive 
examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service now classified 
or to be classified hereunder. 

INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO THE ACT PRIOR TO MAY 14, 1910. 

Prior to May 14, 1910, the Civil Service Commission interpreted 
and administered this act ia such a manner as to make the rule pre- 
scribing the apportionment of "appointments to the public service 
* * * in the departments at Washington" dominant, completely 
ignoring the controlling clause of the law itself, ' ' as nearly as the con- 
ditions of good administration will warrant," and, furthermore, the 
interpretation given ignored the spirit and purpose of the prescription 
setting forth the condition that appointments are to be based on 
examinations which are held ''for testing the fitness of applicants for 
the public service." This was done by slavishly following what in 
the office is known as the "order of appointment"; that is, eligibles 
were certffied from each State in turn, beginning with the lowest in 
the order of apportionment, and by completely exhausting the list in 
each State down to the lowest passing mark before eligibles were 

'7 



8 APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

taken from the next State. In other words, the interpretation and 
practice of the Civil Service Commission operated to set aside all 
grades established "for testing the fitness of applicants for the 
public service," except the passing mark and except, further, to 
make the eligibles competitive within each State. A department 
wishing to have a clerk or a stenographer certified, therefore, in 
many instances has been required to take persons from the list who 
had just managed to pass at or just above 70, when there were many 
others available whose educational qualifications and experience 
enabled them to pass above 90, thereby impairing the service and 
lowering the efficiency of the personnel, on which ''good adminis- 
tration" must depend. 

RUi.E OF MAY 14, 1910. 

So vigorous was the opposition to this practice that on May 14, 
1910, the commission passed a rule which permitted departments to 
secure ''scientific assistants" by first taking the highest of all persons 
who were eligible from all the States that were below their pro rata 
until an average passing mark of 75 had been reached; then to take 
applicants from one State at a time above the pro rata until 75 per 
cent had been reached; then to return to the States below the pro 
rata and take applicants who had passed between 74.99 and 73 per 
cent; and then again to take applicants from one State at a time which 
were above the pro rata between the same marks; then to return a 
third time until the list of States (outside of a group composed of 
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia) had been exhausted, 
after which applicants might be certified from Maryland, Virginia, 
and the District of Columbia in the order stated. 

Had the commission stood on the ground that the practice prior to 
May 14, 1910, was the only fair interpretation to be given to the act 
the practice would have been consistent at least; but the passing of 
the rule was a recognition of the fact that the prior practice was open 
to criticism and that the grades or ratings of persons who had been 
examined should be taken into consideration as indicating the rela- 
tive standing or efficiency of eligibles. The rule when passed was 
limited to one class, namely, ''scientific assistants"; later it w:as 
broadened to include typewriters at a salary of $1,000 per annum 
and above. It is further to be noted that with respect to certain 
classes the rule of apportionment has been disregarded altogether, the 
classes to which this exception applies being called the "nonappor- 
tioned" service. Such were the rules and the practices of the com- 
mission at the time this inquiry was begun. 

INQUIRY BY THE COMMISSION ON ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 

One of the subjects to which the President's Commission on 
Economy and Efficiency was asked to give attention was that of the 
method of making appointments to the public service. For the pur- 
poses of this inquiry applicants for appointment were divided into 
two general classes, namely, (1) appointments to be made by the 
President "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," and 
(2) appointments to be made from the registers of the Civil Service 
Commission. 



APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. \) 

Report on the first class of appointments was submitted to the 
President by the commission on December 5, 1911. That report, 
with recommendations, was sent to Congress April 4, 1912, and was 
published as Appendix I of House Document 670, Sixty-second Con- 
gress, second session (p. 17 et seq.). 

Inquiry into the second class of appointments included: First, 
those to be made to positions in the departmental service at Wash- 
ington; second, those to be made to positions in local offices and field 
services of the various executive offices throughout the United States. 
While a report has not yet been prepared and submitted on the latter 
class, namely, those to positions in local offices and field services, one 
fact is to be noted, viz, that this class comprehends approximately 
90 per cent of all appointments, whereas the appointments which are 
made to departments in Washington comprehend only about 10 per 
cent. A further fact is pertinent to this report — that the appoint- 
ments which are made to local offices and field services of the various 
executive departments throughout the United States are at the 
present time approximately in proportion to population. That is, 
the practice in such cases is to make appointments from the locality 
or district; and since the personnel of local offices and field services 
of the various executive departments is approximately in the same 
proportion as population this local practice results in a distribution 
on population lines. In the city of New York, for example, it was 
found that the Government of the United States regularly employs 
quite as many persons as are employed in Washington. Here is a 
great center of population in which the Government recruits itself 
almost entirely from its own labor market or immediate environment. 
The same is true of Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco — every large 
city in the United States. It is also true of the smaller towns, even 
down to the crossroads post offices. If there is any institutional 
reason for having the States and Territories proportionally repre- 
sented in the service, therefore, this can not be urged as a reason for 
depriving the departments at Washington from availing themselves 
of the benefits which are accorded to New York, Philadelphia, or 
other large cities — the utilization of its own labor market. 

In planning this inquiry, the practice pertaining to appointments 
to positions from registers of the Civil Service Commission in the 
departmental service at Washington was again divided into two parts, 
namely, (1) those relating to the apportioned service and (2) those 
relating to the nonapportioned service. This report is a description 
and discussion of the methods employed and of the results which 
have been obtained in the application of the civil service act to the 
''apportioned service" at Washington. 

RESULTS OP PRACTICES APPLIED TO THE APPORTIONED SERVICE. 

After an exhaustive study of the records of the CivU Service Com- 
mission and of the evidence which was obtained from the depart- 
ments (the results of which are shown in the pages that follow), the 
President's commission has come to the conclusion that the inter- 
pretation which has been given to the act by the Civil Service Com- 
mission has been such as practically to defeat its primary purpose; 
that instead of giving to applicants the benefit of competitive exami- 



10 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

nations, and instead of giving to the service the benefit of rules 
adopted for ''testing the fitness of apphcants"; instead of making 
available to the Government persons who had by the rules estab- 
lished been given a rating of superior merit, every ''condition of good 
administration" has been made subordinate and subservient to de- 
mands that can find no explanation except a desire to contmue a 
system which the law was designed to supplant. Practically the 
only effect of the law as interpreted had been to eliminate from the 
possibility of appointment to positions in the classified service such 
persons as had entirely failed to obtain any standing whatever — i. e., 
to obtain an average above the passing mark. This conclusion — - 
that the result has been to defeat the purposes of the act — is amply 
supported by the facts which are shown in detail below. 

REPORT SUBMITTED AS A STATEMENT OF FACT. 

In submitting this report the thought has been that its chief value 
will lie in statements of fact. In order that controversy might be 
confined entirely to critical comment and constructive recommen- 
dation, the statements of fact are entirely separated in the text. 
To the end that all controversy might be eliminated from the de- 
scriptive statement this portion of the report was prepared and sub- 
mitted to the Civil Service Commission with the request that it be 
reviewed and corrected or enlarged upon, if need be, in order that it 
might be accepted without question as a basis for discussion. This 
descriptive text having been returned, after making such modifica- 
tions as would eliminate every recital concerning which question 
had been raised, critical comment and constructive recommenda- 
tions were submitted. On January 28, 1913, the comment of the 
Civil Service Commission, as an answer to the critical statements 
and constructive recommendations, was returned (Appendix B), 
together with a proposed change in the rules. To this answer the 
President's commission filed a reply (Appendix C) which in brief 
calls attention to the fact that the answer or comment of the Civil 
Service Commission avoided the issues which had been raised and that 
the proposed memorandum (while it was in the nature of an admis- 
sion of past interpretation and practice that have been adverse to 
''good administration") does not reach nor correct the evil results 
that are clearly written on the face of the record as a matter of 
experience. 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION. 

The Commission on Economy and Efficiency recommends that 
the Civil Service Commission's minute of May 14, 1910, be amended 
in such manner as to cover all classes of eligibles and provide for 
the following procedure in certifying eligibles: 

(1) Certify the highest eligible from the entire group of States 
and Territories that have not received their full share of the total 
number of appointments actually made, and continue so to do until 
all the eligibles from such States, Territories, and the District of 
Columbia have been certified with average percentages as much as 85. 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 11 

(2) After all the eligibles described in (1) above have thus been 
certified, then certify from the other States, in their order under the 
apportionment, eligibles with an average percentage of as much 
as 85. 

(3) After all the eligibles described in (2) above have thus been 
certified, then certify the highest remaining eUgibles from the entire 
group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, 
who have percentages of as much as 85.50. 

(4) After all such eligibles described in (3) above have been thus 
certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and in- 
cluding eligibles with percentages of as much as 82.50. 

(5) After all the eligibles described in (4) above have thus been 
certified, then certify the highest remaining ehgibles from the entire 
group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, 
who have percentages of as much as 80. 

(6) After all such eligibles described in (5) above have thus been 
certified, then certify as described in (2) down to and including 
ehgibles with percentages of as much as 80. 

(7) After all the ehgibles described in (6) above have thus been 
certified, then certify the highest remaining ehgibles from the entire 
group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, 
who have percentages of as much as 77.50. 

(8) After all such eligibles described in (7) above have thus been 
certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including 
eligibles with percentages of as much as 77.50. 

(9) After all the eligibles described in (8) above have thus been 
certified, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire 
group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, 
who have percentages of as much as 75. 

(10) After all such ehgibles described in (9) above have thus been 
certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including, 
eligibles with percentages of as much as 75. 

(11) After all the eligibles described in (10) above have thus been 
certified, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire 
group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, 
who have percentages of as much as 72.50. 

(12) After all such eligibles described in (11) above have thus been 
certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including 
eligibles with percentages of as much as 72.50. 

(13) After all the ehgibles described in (12) above have thus been 
certified, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire 
group of States in arrears of their share, in the order of percentages, 
who have percentages of as much as 70. 

(14) After all such eligibles described in (13) above have thus been 
certified, then certify as described in (2) above down to and including 
eligibles with percentages of as much as 70. 



12 



APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



Reduced to tabular form the recommendations of the Commission 
on Economy and Efficiency are that the minute of May 14, 1910, of 
the Civil Service Commission be so changed that all certification of 
eligibles from the registers for appointment to the apportioned service 
at Washington shall be according to the following formula : 



Order of 
certifica- 
tion. 


States. 


Order of 
certifica- 
tion. 


States. 


In arrears. 


In excess. 


In arrears. 


In excess. 


1 

2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

7 


100.00-85.00 

(E.R.) 




8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 




79.99-77.50 
(O.A.) 


100.00-85.00 
(O.A.) 


77. 49-75. 00 
(E.R.) 


84.99-82.50 
(E.R.) 


77.49-75.00 
(O.A.) 


84.99^82.50 
(O.A.) 


74.99-72.50 
(E.R.) 


82.49-80.00 
(E.R.) 


74.99-72.50 
(O.A.) 


82.49-80.00 
(O.A.) 


72.49-70.00 
(E.R.) 


79.99-77.50 
(E.R.) 


72.49-70.00 
(O.A.) 







(E. R.)=Certification from highest on entire register of all States in arrears. 
(O. A.)=Certification in order of apportionment. 

In order that the purpose of the civil-service law may be accom- 
plished, viz, that appointments in the departmental service at Wash- 
ington shall, so far as the conditions of good administration warrant, 
be apportioned among the States, etc., in accordance with the popu- 
lation, the Commission on Economy and Efficiency also recommends 
the payment of mileage to all persons coming to Washington to accept 
employment in that service. 

CLAIMS MADE FOE THE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED. 

In considering what recommendations this commission would make, 
two questions were discussed: (1) Whether it was desirable to recom- 
mend a change in law; (2) whether favorable results which should be 
attained could be reached by Executive order alone. The conclusion 
arrived at with respect to the first question was that the clause requir- 
ing an apportionment of appointments to the service at Washington 
could not stand in the way of good administration without doing 
violence to the language of the law; for this reason it was a matter 
for Executive determination as to what provisions or orders were 
necessary to accomplish the best results. 

The conclusion reached with respect to the second question was 
that the ends of ''good administration" could be reached by some 
such form of Executive order as is recommended. In brief, it was 
thought that a rule could be promulgated which would enable the 
Civil Service Commission to give a prefcrance to such States and 
Territories as were below their quota, and at the same time not in 
any perceptible manner interfere with the principle of merit. The 
character of the rule through which it is thought this end could be 
reached is exemplified above. Concretely, it was proposed that 
all States and Territories, including Maryland, Virginia, and the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, should be divided hito two classes: (1) those "in 



APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 13 

arrears" in appointments, and (2) those '4n excess" in appointments; 
that by enabling the departments to select theii- employees first from 
the highest on the list of all States ''in arrears" down to an average 
of 85, then to turn to those States "in excess" and select down to the 
same average, and by permitting those "in arrears" to have the first 
opportunity, at each step downward of 2 J per cent in the average 
ratings, the principle of selection based on merit and the principle of 
apportionment both could be conserved. This suggested rule has the 
advantage of simplicity and equity as well as being in conformity to 
the spirit of the act. 

Tms conclusion is based on a careful study of the records; it is sup- 
ported also by the opinions of others long in the service with whom 
the subject has been discussed. It is thought that if such a rule were 
adopted every defect which was found to have obtained, as reflected 
by the record, would be cured. A further reason which moved the 
commission was that the rule of apportionment was entitled to 
receive very small consideration, in view of the fact that only a small 
percentage of the appointments are made in the departments at 
Washington. If, therefore, an interpretation were given which gave 
to States "in arrears" a preference, it was thought that there could 
be no foundation whatever for the claim that this rule should take 
precedence or be operated in a manner to perceptibly interfere with 
the rule of merit. 

The dominant reason which has guided the commission has been 
that any rule such as that which has obtained (or that which is pro- 
posed by the Civil Service Commission as a substitute for the recom- 
mendations of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency) would 
necessarily continue to operate to defeat the rule of merit and would 
continue to seriously interfere with efficient administration. It 
would operate quite as seriously against the Government as it would 
against a private concern employing a similar practice. As has been 
pointed out in the reply (Appendix C) the new rule proposed by the 
Civil Service Commission is not offered as a substitute for the old rule 
of May 14, 1910, but it is an endeavor to apply some rule to the classes 
other than "scientific assistant" and "typewriters" receiving a salary 
of $1,000 or more. In the opinion of this commission, the proposed 
rule would not operate in such a manner as to give precedence to the 
rule of merit ; it would not prevent lowering of the moral tone and the 
esprit de corps of the service. If, therefore, there is any reason, 
political or other, which might be urged against such an Executive 
order as has been recommended by the Commission on Economy and 
Efficiency, it was thought that the sooner the issue was squarely 
raised and settled the better it would be for the service. 

The facts concerning which there is no dispute and the corre- 
spondence setting forth the issues concerning which the two com- 
missions have failed to agree are submitted to the President for his 
information. 

As set forth in Appendix C, it appears to be the practice of the 
Civil Service Commission not to allow residents of nine States and 
the District of Columbia to be examined for clerical positions in the 
departments at Washington, nor if examined, to be appointed if 
they be residents of Virginia, Maryland, or the District of Columbia, 
no matter what their qualifications or how inferior may be the qualifi- 



14 



APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



cations of those from other States. It is thought that this practice 
violates the letter and the spirit of the civil-service law in an effort to 
force a mathematical apportionment regardless of efficiency in ad- 
ministration. 



II. METHOD ADOPTED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION' 
FOR DETERMINING RELATIVE ORDER OF STATES AND TERRI- 
TORIES FOR CERTIFYING ELIGIBLE S. 

From the beginning of its history the Civil Service Commission has 
endeavored to make a strict mathematical distribution of appoint- 
ments to the departmental service at Washington, and to that end it 
has employed several methods to determine the number of appomt- 
ments to which each State and Territory is entitled. At the time when 
the civil service act was passed there were 332 Representatives in Con- 
gress. Each State and Territory was at first allotted that proportion 
of 332 appointments that its population bore to the total population 
of the country, and the commission made certifications as nearly as 
possible in such a manner that each State approached the fulfillment 
of its quota at the same rate. In less than two years 332 appoint- 
ments had been made, and from that time to January 6, 1911, the 
practice has been followed of apportioning among the States, etc., 
from time to time, according to the population of each, some arbi- 
trary number, larger than the number of appointments, and of en- 
deavoring so to certify eligibles that each State should approach its 
quota of the arbitrary number at the same rate. 

This method was thought to be defective because the quota thus 
assigned each State was its true quota only on the day when the 
total number of appointments reached the arbitrary number. The 
method was thought to be misleading and at times made it appear 
that a State had received more or less than its due share of appoint- 
ments when the opposite was true, and on January 6, 1911, the 
commission adopted a method based upon the theory that each 
State is entitled to the same per cent of each appointment as its 
population is of the total population. This system, which was con- 
sidered a great improvement over the one first used, can be explained 
best by the use of the following partial table, taken from the com- 
mission's report of June 30, 1911 (p. 138): 



state or Territory. 


Per cent of to- 
tal population, 
which Is also 
the per cent 
due of each 
and all ap- 
pointments. 


Times share of 
one appoint- 
ment involved 
in each ap- 
pointment 
received. 


Number of ap- 
pointments 
received. 


Times share of 
one appoint- 
ment re- 
ceived — Rela- 
tive order for 
certification. 




2. 383345 

. 156368 

1.277191 

1. 194212 

9. 763204 

100 

5. 106906 

8. 211456 

1.308156 

. 795284 


41.9578 
639. 5170 
78. 2968 
83. 7372 
10. 2425 
1 

19. 5813 

12. 1781 

76.4434 

125. 7412 


224 

15 

125 

117 

971 

10, 182 

521 

846 

143 

57 


9, 398. 54 




9,592.76 




9,787.10 


Connecticut 


9,797.25 




9,945.46 


United States 


10, 182. 00 


Ohio 


10,201.86 




10, 302. 67 




10,931.41 




10,939.48 







APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 15 

The total population of the States and Territories and the District 
of Columbia, including Alaska, Porto Rico, and Hawaii, according to 
the census of 1910, was 93,346,543. The second column shows for 
each State its per cent of the total population and its due share of 
each appointment. 

To illustrate the working of this system it may be said that on 
March 17, 1911, 10,182 appointments had been made to the appor- 
tioned service at Washington, and each State was therefore entitled 
to 10,182 times its share of each appointment. As a matter of fact, 
some States had received more and some less. The number of times 
its share of one appointment which each State has actually received is 
shown in the fifth column, and this determines the relative order for 
certification under the present system. 

The third column shows the value to each State of each appoint- 
ment received by it. For example, Iowa is entitled to 2.38 per cent 
of each appointment. When it receives an appointment it receives 
41.9578 times its share of each appointment. The number in the 
third column opposite each State is, therefore, a factor to be added to 
or subtracted from the corresponding number in the fifth column 
every time a resident of the State is appointed or separated from the 
service. For example, an appointment given to Nebraska increases 
its number in the fifth column by 78.2968, or to 9,856.39, and drops 
it below Connecticut in order of certification. 

On March 17, 1911, the United States as a whole had received 
10,182 appointments in the apportioned service at Washington, 
which is 10,182 times its share of one appointment. Any State 
which has received more than 10,182 times its share of one appoint- 
ment was in excess, while any that had received less than 10,182 
times its share of one appointment was in arrears. The number of 
appointments to which a State is entitled at any time may be found 
by multiplying the total number of appointments by its per cent of 
the total population. The per cent of its share which any State 
has received may be found by dividing the number in the fifth col- 
umn, showing the total number of times its share of one appointment 
received, by the total number of appointments received by all the 
States and Territories. 

Using this method the condition of the apportionment is shown 
from day to day, as it varies with the occurrence of vacancies and the 
appointment of new eligibles. A sheet is made up daily showing 
the order of the States and Territories under the apportionment, and 
this sheet is followed in making certifications to the apportioned 
service. 



16 



APPOETIOISTMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



The following is a copy of the apportionment sheet for March 
17, 1911: 

Condition of the apportionment Mar. 17, 1911. 



State. 



IN ARREARS. 



Alaska 

Hawaii 

Porto Rico 

Oklahoma 

Washington 

North Dakota.. 

Idaho 

California 

Oregon 

New Mexico 

Texas 

Utah 

Arkansas 

Montana 

Louisiana 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

Nevada 

South Dakota.. 

Florida 

Wisconsin 

Illinois 

Colorado 

Tennessee 

Kentucky 

Georgia 

South Carolina. 
Arizona 



Re- 
ceived. 



6 

38 

88 

62 

.33 

19 

146 

42 

21 

258 

25 

106 

26 

116 

150 

129 

6 

46 

62 

195 

477 

68 

192 

205 

241 

140 

19 



Relative 
order. 



2,900.94 
2,918.47 
3,172.74 
4,956.98 
5, 067. 89 
5,3.38.20 
5,447.19 
5, 7-32. 18 
5,82r.53 
5,989.21 
6, 180. 69 
6, 250. 60 
6,284.57 
6, 453. 91 
6,537.22 
6,548.82 
6, 700. 57 
6,840.72 
7,354.06 
7,689.81 
7,799.34 
7,896.70 
7,944.14 
8,20.3.31 
8, 356. 69 
8,622.25 
8, 623. 77 
8,679.00 



29 

y30 

31 

32 

a33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

ya38 

39 

a40 



41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
2V.50 
a51 
52 



State. 



IN ARREARS— COntd. 



Minnesota 

Missouri 

Michigan 

New jersey . . . . 

Kansas 

Indiana 

North Carolina. 

Iowa 

Wyoming 

Nebraska 

Coimecticut 

New York 



IN EXCESS. 



Ohio 

Pennsylvania 

West Virginia 

Maine '... 

New Hampshire . . . . 

Rhode Island 

Massachusetts 

Vermont 

Delaware 

Virginia 

Maryland 

District of Columbia. 



Re- 
ceived. 



193 

(308) 307 
262 
240 

(159) 160 

260 

214 

224 

15 

(125) 125 
117 

(970) 971 



521 
846 
143 

87 

53 

67 

430 

65 

37 

(424) 422 

(445) 446 

1,059 



•Relative 
order. 



8, 679. 38 
8, 701. 61 
8, 702. 95 
8,829.98 
8, 832. 58 
8,985.99 
9,054.18 
9, 398. 54 
9, 592. 76 
9,787.10 
9,797.27 
9,945.44 



10, 201. 85 
10,302.72 
10,931.40 
10,939.48 
11,491.23 
11,526.14 
11,923.35 
17,045.73 
17,070.99 
19, 107. 48 
32, 141. 11 
299,590.75 



■Gains: 

A. By appointment. . 

B. By transfer 

0. By reinstatement . 



Losses: 

X. By transfer 

Y. By separation. 



Total salary loss $4, 540 

Total salary gain 2, 940 



Net salary loss 1 , 600 



Total appointments ^ 10, 182 

( ) number on preceding day. 

Under this method of debiting and crediting appointments and 
separations every State and Territory is placed from day to day in 
exact mathematical order accordmg to the strength of its claim for 
an appointment, the State having the fewest appointments in pro- 
portion to population being shown at the top of the sheet and the 
State having the largest number of appomtments being shown at the 
bottom. By certifying from the top of this list of States down to the 
bottom there is a constant tendency to equalize appointments among 
the States. The eligibles from States farthest in arrears are certified 
first, while the eligibles from the States farthest in excess are certified 
last. 

This method of keeping the record of appointments and separations 
is simple and accurate, and answers admirably the purpose for which 
it was devised. There can be no just criticism of a method for deter- 



APPOKTIOlSrMEISrT OF APPOINTMENTS. 17 

mining with mathematical accuracy the relative order of States and 
Territories according to the number of appointments with wliich they 
stand charged. It is, however, in the opinion of the Commission on 
Economy and Efficiency against the interests of good administration 
to follow this arrangement of States absolutely in making appoint- 
ments, except when all States furnish eligibles of equal merit. When 
the eligibles are of unequal merit, "good administration" demands 
that the order of States should be disregarded and the eligible of 
superior attainments be offered the appointment. 

III. METHOD OF CERTIFYING FROM THE STATE REGISTERS 
AFTER MAY 14, 1910. 

Prior to May 14, 1910, the general method of certifying eligibles to 
the apportioned service at Washington was to certify those from the 
State having the first claim as long as there were any eligibles on 
the registers down to a bare passing mark of 70. Civil Service Rule 
VI provides, among other things, that examination papers shall be 
rated on a scale of 100, and that all competitors rated at 70 or more 
shall be eligible for appointment, and their names shall be placed on 
the proper register according to their ratings; but those honorably 
discharged from the military or naval service of the United States, 
rated at 65 or more, are placed above all others. Certifications are 
made from the top of each register thus arranged. 

This method naturally resulted in dissatisfaction on the part of 
heads of departments and bureaus because they were unable to secure 
the certification of the eligibles with the highest ratings when such 
eligibles were residents of States not in order of certification. In 
fact, it frequently happened that the departments were forced to be 
content with eligibles with bare passing marks when the registers 
of States not in order of certification carried eligibles with highly 
creditable ratings. The greatest difficulty under this method seems 
to have been experienced by the Civil Service Commission in supply- 
ing satisfactory eligibles for scientific and technical positions. 

To meet this difficulty, the Civil Service Commission, on May 14, 
1910, adopted a minute modifying their method of certifying eligibles 
for techmcal and scientific positions, and on October 18, 1911, 
extended the provisions of the minute to eligibles for the position 
of stenographer and typewriter at initial salaries above $900 a year. 
(Under sectio^i 262 of the Civil Service Commission's Manual of Exam- 
inations for the fall of 1912 the minute of May 14, 1910, is made to 
apply to stenographer and typewriter eligibles for appointment at 
$1,000 or more. This section also limits the scope of the minute in 
the selection of eligibles for technical and scientific positions to those 
who are to receive an initial salary of $1,000. This increases some- 
what the difficulties of the departments in securing competent 
eligibles at the salaries they are able to pay.) The following is a copy 
of the minute: 

CERTIFICATION — APPORTIONMENT. 

1. Certify the highest eligibles from the entire group of States and Territories that 
have not received their full share of the total number of appointments actually made, 
and continue so to do until all the eligibles from such States and Territories have been 
■certified with average percentages as much as 75. 

S. Doc. 50, 63-1 2 



18 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

2. After all the eligibles described in (1) above have thus been certified, then 
certify from the other States, in their order under the apportionment, eligibles with 
an average percentage of as much as 75 down to the two States and the District of 
Colmnbia having the largest excess of their share of appointments. _ 

3. After all the eligibles described in (2) above have thus been certified, then certify 
the highest remaining eligibles from the entire group of States in arrears of their share 
in the order of percentages who have percentages of as much as 73. 

4. After all such eligibles described in (3) above have thus been certified, then 
certify as described in (2) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of 
as much as 73. 

5. After all eligibles have thus been certified with averages as much as 73 down ta 
the two States and the District of Columbia that have received the greatest excess of 
their share, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire group of States 
and Territories in arrears of their share; and after all eligibles from such group of States 
have been certified, then certify from each State in its order under the apportionment. 

The following is a list of registers from which certification will be made in accordance 
with the above directions: 

Aid, Coast and Geodetic Survey. 

Assistant chemist. 

Assistant chemist, Public Roads. 

Assistant chemist, Bureau of Standards. 

Assistant curator. 

Assistant examiner. 

Assistant dairyman. 

Assistant in -dry-land agriculture. 

Scientific assistant. 

Soil chemist. 

Farm management. 

Physiology and nutrition of man. 

Soil physics. 

Rural engineer, drainage. 

Rural engineer, irrigation. 

Horticulture. 

Agronomy. 

Plant pathology. 

Soil surveying. 

Pomology. 

Agrostology. 

Dairying. 

Plant breeding. 

Animal bacteriology. 

Food bacteriology. 

Animal husbandry. 

Seed testing. 

Library science. 
Computer. 

Coast and Geodetic Survey. 

Nautical Almanac Office. 

Miscellaneous, Naval Observatory. 

Supervising Architect. 
Draftsmen. 

Architectural. 

Copyist topographic. 

Electrical engineer. 

Engineer. 

Heating and ventilating. 

Junior architectural. 

Mechanical and chart. 
Editor. 

Experimental Station, Agriculture. 

Bureau of Education, Interior, 
Junior Animal Husbandry. 
Laboratory aid. Plant Industry. 
Engineer physicist. 
Laboratory assistant. 

Experimental engineering. 

General chemistry. 

Theoretical and experimental electricity. 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 19 

Laboratory assistant, Agriculture. 

Library cataloguer. 

Physiologist, Poisonous Plant Investigation. 

Plant physiologist. 

Telegraph operator. 

Telephone operator. 

Tariff clerk. 

Translator. 

French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese. 
And from kindred registers that may be established when approved by the com- 
mission. 

From the following registers certification will be made in accordance with the 
apportionment: 

Law clerk 



Machinist. 

Messenger. 

Skilled laborer. 

Stenographer and typewriter. 

Watchman. 



Bookkeeper. 

Clerk. 

Clerk examiner. 

Elevator conductor. 

Engineer 

Fireman. 

Laboratory helper. 

And from kindred registers that may be established. (Minute 5, May 14, 1910.) 

The Civil Service Commission thus showed that they recognized the 
impracticability of securing good administration by requiring at all 
times a strict mathematical apportionment of public offices. 

Under this minute certification is first made from the entire group 
of States and Territories which have not received their full share of 
appointments in proportion to population. Certifications from the 
States thus in arrears are continued until all eHgibles down to an 
average of 75 per cent have been certified. Then the States which 
have received more than their quota of appointments are taken, each 
in its order, and the ehgibles of each State are certified down to an 
average of 75 per cent, excluding Virginia, Maryland, and the District 
of Columbia, which are most in excess of aU. After all eligibles from 
all the States, except Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Colum- 
bia, have been certified down to an average of 75, then the process is 
repeated by returning to the group of States and Territories that have 
received less than their full quota of appointments and certifying all 
eligibles down to an average of 73 per cent, and in turn the eligibles 
from the States that have received more than their share are certified 
in their order of apportionment down to 73 per cent, again excluding 
Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. After all ehgibles 
from aU. the States, except Virginia, Maryland, and the District of 
Columbia, have been certified down to an average of 73, then the 
process is repeated by returning to the group of States that have 
received less than their fuU quota of appointments and certifying all 
eligibles down to the passing mark of 70, and in turn the ehgibles from 
the States that have received more than their share of appointments 
are certified in their order of apportionment down to the passing mark 
of 70. The minute thus specifically bars the certification of any 
eligibles from Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, where 
many of the the best quahfied ehgibles are found, until after all 
eligibles from every other State have been certified down to a bare 
passing mark of 70. The operation of the minute may be illustrated 
by the following diagram : 



20 



APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 



Method of certification of aids and scientific assistants under Civil Service Commission's 

minute of May 14, 1910. 



Order of 


States. 








certifica- 






Virginia, 


tion. 


In arrears. 


In excess 


Maryland, and 




(see note). 


District of 








Columbia. 


1 


100. 00-75. 00 
(E.R.) 


X 


X 


2 




100. 00-75. 00 
(O.A.) 


X 


3 


74.99-73.00 
(E.R.) 


X 


X 


4 




74.99-73.00 
(0. A.) 


X 


5 


72.99-70.00 
(E.R.) 


X 


X 


6 




72.99-70.00 
(O.A.) 


X 


7 


~ 




100.00-70.00 

(O.A.) 



Note. — Exclusive of Viiginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. 

(E. R.)=Certl£ication from highest on entire register of all States in arrears. 

(O. A. )= Certification in order of apportionment. 

X=No possibility of certification. 

— =Registers exhausted down to lowest number immediately above. 

Under this minute the various registers of eUgibles are, for the pur- 
pose of certification to the departmental service at Washington, 
divided into two groups, as follows: 

(a) Scientific and technical assistants and stenographers and type- 
writers, for appointment at initial salaries of $1,000 or more, are 
certified in the order provided by the minute as described above. 

(b) Scientific and technical assistants at initial salaries of less than 
$1,000; bookkeepers, clerks, clerk examiners, elevator conductors, 
engineers, firemen, laboratory helpers, law clerks, machinists, mes- 
sengers, skilled laborers, and watchmen, and eligibles from kindred 
registers that may be established, and stenographers and typewriters 
for appointment at initial salaries of less than $1,000 are certified from 
the States and Territories having the greatest claim for an appoint- 
ment at the time the certification is made, or in other words, from the 
State which has the fewest employees in the apportioned service at 
the time the certification is made. Certifications are made from the 
State having the greatest claim for an appointment down to a bare 
passing mark of 70. 

The following statement shows that, during the year 1911, 1,741 
appointments were made to the service at Washington. Of that 
number 633 were in the nonapportioned service, and 1,108 were in the 
apportioned service, of which only 321, or a little more than a fourth, 
were appointed under the minute of May 14, 1910. 

Appointments to the departmental service during the year 1911. 





Nonappor- 
tioned. 


Appor- 
tioned. 


Minute. 


Total. 


Educational test: 

General examiaations 


319 


420 

J 220 

14 

100 


290 
»31 


1,029 
251 


Stenographer and typewriter 


Stenographer 




14 


Typewriter 






100 


Total educational test 


319 
314 


754 
33 


321 


1,394 


Noneducational test: General examination 


347 


Total p.xaminatlons . . 


633 


787 


321 


1,741 





1 Distribution estimated. 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 21 

While the method of certifying under this minute of May 14, 1910, 
undoubtedly gives the heads of departments and bureaus a better 
class of ehgibles from which to make their selections where it applies 
than was possible under the older methods, it is thought by the Com- 
mission on Economy and Efficiency that the minute does not benefit 
the service as greatly as it should, because it does not go far enough. 
It is manifest from the letters received from department officials, 
which are given in Appendix A, that the Government is still fre- 
quently deprived of the services of the ehgibles passing highest, and 
the work of the Government is thereby retarded or injured. It is 
also apparent from the tables which have been prepared by the com- 
mission that there is just ground for complaint if it is assumed that 
grades count for anything. Another fact is to be noted — the practice 
of appointing all ehgibles from the preferred State before taking 
eligibles from the next State on the fist results in the loss of many, 
of the highest ehgibles, for the more capable the ehgible the less 
hkely he is to wait for months after he has passed his examination 
to receive an appointment in the Government service. An ehgible 
with high marks who is a resident of a State or Territory that may 
not be reached for months after examination, if at all, is hkely to 
secure employment outside of the service and be unwilhng to accept 
Government employment when his name is finally reached. This 
fact is noted in the twenty-seventh annual report of the commission 
in the following language: 

The maximum result of an examination is obtained through the possibility of certi- 
fication at the earliest practicable date, since the number of declinations increases in 
proportion to the time which elapses after an examination (p. 13). 

In its twenty-eighth annual report the commission says : 

At best the eligible list is a waiting list, and the longer the period of waiting from 
the time of holding examination the less likely are the eligibles to be available for 
appointment when their names are reached for certification. Because of their supe- 
rior qualifications, those who attain the highest averages are usually available for a 
shorter period of time than those who attain the lower ratings (p. 35). 

IV. QUESTION RAISED AS TO WHETHER RESULTS OBTAINED ARE 
IN HARMONY WITH PURPOSE OF ACT. 

To determine whether "good administration" ''warrants" the 
present method of certification, two questions must be answered: 
(1) How much below the highest are the marks of those certified; 
and, (2) Are the lower marks of those certified an evidence of less 
fitness for appointment than those marked highest ? 

In order to throw light on the first question, the following tables 
were made up from the records of the Civil Service Commission. 
They cover the commission's certifications durmg the year 1910 
from four registers — those of clerk, bookkeeper, female stenographer 
and typewriter, and laboratory helper — and show the general averages 
of those certified compared with the averages of those who would 
have been certified if the commission had certified the highest avail- 
able without regard to residence. They are arranged in two sets. 
It wiU be noted that the first set immediately following this text 
compares the examination ratings of the three persons certified under 
the apportionment rule with the three persons who passed the highest 
in the examination but who were not certified because residents of 
States or Territories which had, at the time, their fuU quota of 
appointments. 



22 



APPOETION^MENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



It will be seen in the case of the clerks that on only one certificate 
(Commerce and Labor No. 3636) was the average of the three eligibles 
actually certified as high as the average of the three eligibles standing 
highest among all the States and Territories. The average rating of 
the eligibles on the other 45 certificates was from 0.42 to 15.19 points 
below the average of the highest among all the States and Territories. 
The average rating of clerks for the year was 8.45 points below the 
average of the highest available from all the States and Territories. 

Table 1. — Average examination rating of clerks certified under the present system of 
certifying from States having the greatest claim for appointment at time certification is 
made, the average examination rating of clerks who were the highest available from all 
ike States at time certification was made, and the difference hetiveen ratings of clerks 
actually certified and highest available. / 





[All departments, year 1910.] 










No. of 
certifi- 
cate. 


Examination ratings (average 
of 3 persons certified). 


Salary (average of C 
certified). 


persons 


Department. 


Under 
appor- 
tionment. 


Highest 
eligibles. 


Differ- 
ence 
caused 
by rule. 


Offered. 


Accept- 
able to 
persons 
certified. 


Accept- 
able to 
highest 
eligibles. 


State 


1239 

251 

1389 

425 

1427 
1428 
435 
1437 
1446 
3363 
.3381 
3472 
3473 
13636 

6529 
6846 
6959 

17006 
7151 
7225 
7353 

18586 

18617 
18652 

18731 

18917 
18934 

9017 
9034 


79.72 
73.85 
76.32 
80.53 
81.27 
89.40 
79.00 
83.37 
79.78 
78.25 
73.85 
80.27 
80.20 
80.27 
77.73 
76.48 
77.22 
81.22 
77.70 
77.70 
81.. 55 
77.57 
80.20 
77.60 
75.13 
75.78 
76.85 
76.43 
78.33 
78.67 
78.17 
75.20 
78.43 
80.97 
83.97 
75.47 
80.15 
81.00 
77.47 
76.57 
79.98 
77.28 
75.63 
76.37 
78.95 
74.28 


90.32 
86.72 
88.35 
86.80 
90.32 
89.82 
84.63 
87.98 
87.15 
86.97 
88.08 
87.28 
86.83 
86.62 
77.73 
81.07 
86.62 
88.48 
88.27 
87.75 
86.90 
86.52 
86.43 
85.97 
90.32 
89.82 
88.77 
89.40 
88.80 
88.70 
88.60 
88.02 
87.85 
87.77 
87.70 
87.22 
86.47 
85.75 
85.18 
84.70 
83.97 
86.55 
80.40 
84.60 
88.80 
87.75 


10.60 
12.87 
12.03 
6.27 
9.05 
.42 
5.63 
4.61 
7.37 
8.72 
14.23 
7.01 
6.63 
6.35 


S900 

900 

1,020 

840 

840 

900 

1,020 

840 

840 

840 

900 

720 

840 

720 

840 

840 

840 

720 

600 

720 

720 

600 

720 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

900 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

780 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

900 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 


S620 
900 
880 
560 
640 
680 
800 
740 
680 
740 
900 
653 
640 
660 
747 
667 
753 
740 
500 
560 
600 
560 
640 
880 
900 
933 
933 
660 
967 

1,000 

1,000 
933 
SiS 
833 
860 
840 
640 
833 
833 
800 
860 
820 
800 
800 
933 

1,000 


$667 


Do 


900 




900 


Civil Service Commission 

Do 


747 
667 
600 


Interstate Commerce 


827 


Civil Service Commission 

Do 


640 
807 


Do 


740 


Commerce and Labor 


800 


Do 


600 


Do 


680 


Do 


600 


Do 


747 


Navy 


4.59 
9.40 
7.26 
10.57 
10.05 
5.35 
8.95 
6.23 
8.37 
15.19 
14.04 
11.92 
12.97 
10.47 
10.03 
10.43 
12.82 
9.42 
6.80 
3,73 
11.75 
6.32 
4.75 
7.71 
8.13 
3.99 
9.27 
4.77 
8.23 
9.85 
13.47 


747 
720 




640 


Do 


600 


Do 


640 


Do 


600 


Do 


600 


Do 


620 


War 


767 


Do 


667 
600 
847 
680 


Do 


747 


Do 


767 
867 
740 
800 


Do 


800 
900 
727 
640 


Do 


860 


Do 


880 
847 
773 
800 


Do 


847 


Average for all certifica^ 


880 
880 
867 


78.52 


86.97 


8.45 


898 


777 


745 









1 Certificates on which appointments were made. 



It will be seen in the case of the bookkeepers that on only one 
certificate (Civil Service Commission No. 451) was the average of 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



23 



the three ehgibles actually certified as high as the average of the 
three eligibles standing highest among all the States and Territories, 
and in this case the advantage of 7.39 points in favor of the appor- 
tionment does not in fact exist, for the high eligibles making up the 
average of 91.09 shown in the apportionment column were included 
in_ previous certifications shown in the column headed "Highest 
eligibles." In this case these high eligibles were finally reached 
under the apportionment, but not as early as they would have been 
reached without the apportionment. The average rating of the 
eligibles on the other 40 certificates was from 2.22 to 16.01 points 
below the average of the highest among all the States and Territories. 
The general average for all certificates for the year was 6.88 points 
below the average of the highest available from all the States and 
Territories. 

Table 2.— Average examination rating of bookkeepers certified under the present system 
of certifying from States having the greatest claim for appointment at time certification 
is made, the average examination rating of bookkeepers who were the highest available 
from all the States at time certification was made, and the difference between ratings of 
bookkeepers actually certified and highest available. 

[Al] departments, year 1910.] 



Department, 



No. of 
eertifl- 
cate. 



Examination ratings (average 
of 3 persons certifiecl). 



Salary (average of 3 persons 
certifled). 



Under 
appor- 
tionment. 



Highest 
eligibles. 



Differ- 
ence 
caused 
by rule. 



Offered. 



Accept- 
able to 
persons 
certifled. 



Accept- 
able to 
highest 
eligibles. 



Civil Service Commission. 

Do 

Do 



Do. 

Do. 
Do. 
Do. 

Do. 



Do 

Commerce and Labor. 

Navy 

Interior 

War 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Treasury 



War 

Do... 

Treasury . 

War 

Treasury. 



Do. 



Do. 



War. 



Do. 
Do. 



1426 

142S 

429 

1434 

437 
1439 

441 
1 444 

1450 

1451 
13470 
16624 
17193 

8588 
18600 
18616 



18875 



8894 
18911 
18914 
18936 



18944 



18962 
18958 
19015 
19028 
19036 



84.90 
78.91 
78.11 
83.90 
83.38 
77.33 
78.41 
74.20 
77.38 
75.54 
78.34 
80.93 
91.09 
78.30 
76.71 
74.79 
78.40 
77.61 
78.54 
78.30 
74.62 
77.20 
78.86 
77.42 
76.43 
79.23 
79.74 
82.70 
76.83 
81.86 
80.83 
77.81 
74.94 
80.44 
77.33 
75.35 
78.37 
78.10 
78.39 
78.33 
77.16 



88.09 
87.49 
86.79 
86.60 
86.60 
85.12 
82.42 
90.21 
86.30 
82.51 
83.79 
83.75 
83.70 
86.06 
86.93 
88.43 
85.19 
88.63 
87.30 
87.63 
87.30 
86.85 
86.60 
86.45 
85.71 
85.31 
85.55 
84.92 
84.50 
84.20 
86.14 
85.38 
84.71 
84.95 
84.25 
84.06 
83.81 
83.81 
83.77 
83.67 
83.60 



3.19 

8.58 
8.68 
2.70 
3.22 
7.79 
4.01 

16.01 
8.92 
6.97 
5.45 
2.82 
-7.39 
7.76 

10.22 

13.64 
6.79 

11.02 
8.76 
9.33 

12.68 
9.65 
7.74 
9.03 
9.28 
6.08 
5.81 
2.22 
7^67 
2.34 
5.31 
7.57 
9.77 
4.51 
6.92 
8.71 
5.44 
5.71 
5.38 
5.34 
6.44 



840 
840 
720 
840 
840 
840 
840 
840 



900 
1,000 
900 
900 
1,000 
900 
1,000 
1,000 
900 
900 
900 
900 
900 
900 
900 
700 
900 
700 
700 
700 
700 
700 
700 
700 
660 
900 
900 
900 



713 

900 
900 
767 
640 
707 
747 
843 
818 
760 
747 
853 
720 
873 
780 
900 
900 
900 
720 
950 
833 
833 
833 
800 
767 
723 
740 
600 
720 
680 
640 
640 
600 
640 
600 
680 
620 
680 



S807 
780 
780 
720 
720 
680 
680 
720 

■ 747 
790 
800 
720 
747 
900 
987 
760 
767 
873 
800 

1,000 
987 
820 
720 
747 
840 
840 
900 
867 
600 
880 
673 
680 
640 
680 
640 
640 
660 
620 
767 
707 
787 



General average for aU certi- 
fications 



78.71 



761 



1 Certificates on which appointments were made. 



24 



APPORTIOlSrMElSrT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



It will be seen in the case of the female stenographers and type- 
writers that in no single instance was the average of the three eligioles 
actually certified as high as the average of the three eligibles standing 
highest among all the States and lerritories. The average rating 
of the eligibles was from 0.59 to 14.83 points below the average of the 
highest among all the States and Territories. The general average 
for all certificates for the year was 8.39 pomts below the average of 
the highest available from'^ all the States and Territories. 

Table 3. — Average examination rating of female stenographers and typewriters certified 
under the present system of certifying from States having the greatest claim for appoint- 
ment at time certification is made, the average examination rating of those who were 
the highest available from all the States at time certification was made, and the difference 
between ratings of those actually certified and highest available. 

[A 11 departments, year 1910.] 



Department. 



No. of 
certifi- 
cate. 



Examination ratings (average 
of 3 persons certified). 



Under 
appor- 
tionment. 



Highest 
eligibles. 



Difler- 

ence 

caused 

by rule. 



Salary (average of 3 persons 
certified). 



Offered. 



Accept- 
able to 
persons 
certified. 



Accept- 
able to 
highest 
eligibles. 



Post-Office 

Do 

Commerce and Labor. 
Mavy 

Do 

Agriculture 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Interior 

Do 

Agriculture 



Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do..... 
Interior 

Do 

Agriculture. 

Do 

Do 

Interior 

Agriculture. 
Interior 

Do 

Do 

Treasury. . . 



General average for all cer- 
tifications 



11674 

1734 
13407 

6363 
16370 

6703 
16726 
16738 
16755 

6860 
16887 

6950 
16963 
17007 
17036 
17062 

7074 
17116 

17133 

7163 

17166 

7182 

1 7206 

17231 

17331 

1 7350 

1 7378 

7392 

7398 

7415 

17425 

7433 

17443 

1 7458 

7479 

17484 

1 7493 

7498 

7512 



81.11 
77.63 
82.09 
79.75 
80.23 
76.87 
78.11 
81.28 
78.13 
76.31 
76.80 
78.13 
75.78 
79.12 
83.32 
78.55 
78.10 
77.81 
78.08 
75.72 
77.63 
77.08 
77.40 
77.47 
75.65 
80.47 
75.71 
79.21 
79.13 
77.06 
74.90 
76.50 
75.67 
75.31 
75.59 
85.40 
77.58 
74.61 
75.14 
76.53 
80.96 



86.44 
88.15 
89.66 
85.19 
85.09 
85.66 
88.23 
87.57 
86.98 
86.59 
85.96 
85.48 
85.96 
84.89 
84.65 
88.50 
87.22 
88.57 
87.85 
87.85 
88.64 
87.19 
86.48 
85.87 
88.51 
85.29 
85.04 
84.73 
84.30 
84.21 
84.23 
87.93 
90.50 
86.33 
84.03 
85.99 
85.24 
84.68 
84.14 
83.98 
88.30 



5.33 

10.52 

7.57 

5.44 

4.86 

8.79 

10.12 

6.29 

8.85 

10.28 

9.16 

7.35 

10.18 

5.77 

1.33 

9.95 

9.12 

10.76 

9.77 

12.13 

11.01 

10.11 

9.08 

8.40 

12.86 

4.82 

9.33 

5.52 

5.17 

7.15 

9.33 

11.43 

14.83 

11.02 

8.44 

0.59 

7.66 

10.07 

9.00 

7.45 

7.34 



78.00 



86.39 



8.39 



$900 
900 
900 
840 
840 
600 
720 
840 
840 
720 
840 
720 
840 
840 
840 
900 
900 
720 
720 
720 
900 
660 
720 
720 
900 
840 
720 
720 
720 
720 
480 
900 
900 
840 
720 
840 
840 
840 
840 
840 
900 



800 
827 
720 
,720 
700 
840 
827 
600 
667 
640 
640 
720 
740 
660 
800 
700 
700 
720 
880 
620 
720 
640 
860 
747 
640 
673 
673 
681 
600 
780 
780 
660 
600 
807 
680 
600 
720 
680 
900 



$760 
900 
807 
560 
520 
640 
720 
760 
760 
720 
680 
600 
627 
600 
680 
900 
780 
640 
640 
640 
880 
600 
600 
600 
900 
640 
600 
640 
643 
643 
480 
900 
867 
806 
643 
760 
760 
720 
800 
760 
900 



712 



1 Certificates on which appointments were made. , 



It will be seen in the case of the laboratory helpers that on only two 
certificates (Agriculture Nos. 7318 and 7336) were the average of the 
three eligibles actually certified as high as the average of the three 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



25 



eligibles standing highest among all the States and Territories, and 
in these two cases the advantages of 0.90 and 0.23 points in favor of 
the apportionment do not in fact exist, for the higher eligibles making 
up the averages of 82.05 and 82.70 shown in the column headed 
''Under apportionment" were included in previous certificates in the 
column headed ''Highest eligibles." In these cases those higher 
eligibles were finally reached under the apportionment, but not as 
early as they would have been reached without the apportionment. 
The average rating of the eligibles on the other 21 certificates was 
from 0.30 to 11.30 points below the average of the highest among all 
the States and Territories. The general average for all certificates 
for the year was 4.78 points below the average of the highest 
available from all the States and Territories. 



Table 4. — Average examination rating of laboratory helpers certified under the present 
system of certifying from States having the greatest claim for appointment at time certi- 
fication is made, the average examination rating of laboratory helpers who were the highest 
available from all the States at time certification was made, and the difference between 
ratings of laboratory helpers actually certified and highest available. 

[Department of Agriculture, year 1910.] 



Department. 



No. of 
certifi- 
cate. 



Examination ratings (average 
of 3 persons certified). 



Under 
appor- 
tionment. 



Highest 
eligibles. 



Differ- 
ence 
caused 
by rule. 



Salary (average of 3 persons 
certified). 



Offered. 



Accept- 
able to 
persons 
certified. 



Accept- 
able to 
highest 
eligibles. 



Agriculture. 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 



16732 

6773 

6879 

7015 

17027 

17090 



7097 
17106 
7150 
7193 
7210 
0) 

7286 
17318 
7336 
7387 
7388 
7389 
7441 
7451 
7456 



83.00 
79.33 
77.60 
80.03 
79.60 
79.32 
78.70 
80.27 
84.17 
82.10 
79.67 
78.83 
82.33 
78.83 
82.05 
82.70 
75. 93 
78.67 
78.40 
80.77 
78.40 
82.63 



91.30 
90.00 
88.90 
87.10 
80. 20 
85.57 
85.17 
84.90 
84.83 
84.53 
83.83 
83.10 
82.63 
85.93 
81.15 
82.47 
80.47 
79.57 
81.90 
87.50 
86.10 
85.40 



8.30 
10.67 
11.30 
7.07 
6.60 
6.24 
6.47 
4.63 
0.66 
2.43 
4.16 
4.27 
0.30 
7.10 
-0.90 
-0.23 
4.54 
0.90 
3.50 
6.73 
7.70 
2.77 



600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
900 
480 
600 
600 
600 
500 
500 
900 
600 



567 
567 
567 
600 
567 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
540 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
800 
600 



600 
600 
600 
560 
560 
560 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
700 
480 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 
600 



General average for all 
certificates 



80.15 



84.93 



4.78 



600 



594 



1 Certificates on which appointments were made. 

While differences of from 1 to 16 points in averages may not seem 
to some people to be worth considering, it should be borne in mind 
that these differences mean that the person receiving the lower 
average has made more mistakes in his papers than the one receiving 
the higher average. By people who value accuracy such differences 
are very important. 

It would seem to be evident that the apportionment rule as now 
enforced makes it impossible for those passing highest to be generally 
certified first. It may happen occasionally that the person passing 



26 APPOKTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 

the best examination is also a resident of the State having the greatest 
claim under the rule of apportionment, but the law of probabilities is 
strongly against such a chance; in fact, since there are 50 States and 
Territories from which eligibles may be certified, there would be but 
one chance in 50 that the State having the highest eligible would also 
stand first for appointment if one eligible were certified at a time, 
except when two eligibles from different States had the same rating, 
Smce, however, three names are usually certified for each appoint- 
ment, the chance that the three highest eligibles would be certified 
is so remote as to be almost negligible. In compiling from the 
original certificates the four tables shown in this report (Tables 1-4) 
this commission found that in no instance did a certificate contain 
the names of the three persons who stood the highest on the register 
at the time certification was made, notwithstanding the fact that 
those eligibles standing highest were qualified in every respect save 
that of residence. 

V. LOWER MARKS OBTAINED ON EXAMINATION AS EVIDENCE OF 

LESS FITNESS. 

It is sometimes contended by the advocates of the present appor- 
tionment system tha t persons entering the service with low examina- 
tion marks are quite as likely to make efficient clerks as are those who 
enter with high marks, and cases are sometimes cited to prove this con- 
tention. To admit the soundness of this argument is, however, to 
deny the merit of the competitive system. It will be admitted, of 
course, that ' 'temperament" sometimes prevents an individual 
under the strain of an examination from doing himself justice, while 
a less capable person not so handicapped by temperament may 
make a better showing on the same examination. But the real 
question is to determme whether such cases are exceptions or whether 
they are the rule. If such cases are not exceptions but are the rule, 
then our system of competitive examinations is illogical and farcical. 
If such cases are exceptions, however, then those passing highest are, 
in fact, best qualified for office, and, after appointment, will stand 
highest on department efficiency ratings if such ratings are fairly 
made, thus proving that the system of competitive examinations is 
sound. Wliat is m fact shown when the entrance examination 
marks received by a candidate for appointment are compared with 
his efficiency record after appointment ? 

To answer this question the efficiency records of the War Depart- 
ment and the Department of Commerce and Labor were selected for 
study. The records of these departments were chosen for that 
purpose because those departments have maintained a careful recOrd 
of the work of their employees, and it is generally believed that 
promotions have been made in those departments in accordance 
with such records. The War Department was requested to prepare 
a statement showing by offices, all clerks, stenographers and type- 
writers, and bookkeepers appointed between January 1, 1905, and 
December 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were appomted, the 
civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil 
service examination ratings, their salaries on September 1, 1911, and 
their departmental efficiency ratings on September 1, 1911. The 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 27 

statement submitted by the War Department is shown in columns 
(a), (b), (c), id), {e), (/), and {g) of the following table. For reasons 
which will be explained hereafter, column (Ji) was added by the 
Commission on Economy and Efficiency to show the relative standing 
of each clerk among all the clerks of various salaries. 

Similar tables were prepared by the Department of Commerce and 
Labor covering employees appointed since the organization of that 
department. 

A clerk's efficiency rating in the War Department is one of relative 
standing in his salary grade. Appointments are made at the lower 
salaries, and promotions are made from one salary grade to the next 
higher in the order of relative standing. Thus the clerk standing 
highest in any salary grade is first to be promoted to the next higher 
salary grade, and when so promoted is placed at the bottom of the 
group of clerks in the grade to which he is promoted. The person 
thus promoted can not be promoted again until all the persons above 
him m his salary grade are promoted, unless he is advanced above 
others in that grade as the result of his semiannual efficiency rating. 

The War Department's efficiency ratings for each office show the 
standing of each employee with respect to the other clerks receiving 
the same salary. Thus the table shows in column {g) that clerk A 
in The Adjutant General's Office stands 74 from the top of a list of 
232 clerks in the $1,200 grade, and clerk B stands 81 from the top of 
a list of 94 clerks in the $1,400 grade, while clerk H stands 10 from 
the top of a list of 61 clerks in the $1,000 grade. Since all clerks in 
the $1,200 grade are above those in the $1,000 grade, and all clerks 
in the $1,400 grade are above those in the $1,200 grade, it was nec- 
essary to reduce the different groups to a comparable basis by adding 
together the clerks in each grade and to add to the number repre- 
senting the relative standing of each clerk the number of clerks in 
all the grades above his grade. Thus clerk A stands 168 from the 
top of a list of 387, clerk B stands 81 from the top of a list of 387, 
while clerk H stands 336 from the top of a list of 387. 

The table as presented by the War Department — in the order of 
dates of appointment — would appear to indicate very little, further 
than to emphasize the exceptions previously referred to, namely, 
that a person passing low in a civil-service examination may prove 
to be more efficient than a person passing higher. Thus, in the table 
presented, clerk D, who entered the service with a civil-service rating 
of 81.90, stands 91 from the top of the list of 232 clerks in the $1,200 
grade, while clerk E, who entered the service with a civil-service 
rating of only 74.51, stands 7 from the top of the same list, or 84 
places above clerk D, notwithstanding the fact that they entered 
the service within 10 days of each other in June, 1906. 



28 



APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



Table 5. — Clerks certified to the War Department by the Civil Service Commission between 
Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were ajjpointed, the civil- 
service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service-examination ratings, 
their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efficiency ratings Sept. 1, 1911. 

OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL. 



Date appointed. 



Name. 



Salary at 
which ap- 
pointed. 



Civil-service - 



Register. 



Rating. 



Salary 

Sept. 1, 

1911. 



Departmental efficiency rat- 
ing Sept. 1, 1911. 



Relative 

standing 

among 

clerks of 

same 

salary. 



Relative 
standing 

among 
clerks of 

various 
salaries. 



Relative 
standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 



(a) 

1905 

Apr. 19 

May 29 

1906, 

May 19 

June 4 

June 14 

Dec. 15 

1907, 

Feb. 12 

Feb. 14 

Feb. 18 

Apr. 8 

May 1 

June 11 

June 12 

June 24 

Do 

Do 

Sept. 3 

Oct. 3 

Oct. 16 

Nov. 7 

Nov.25 

Do 

1908, 
Jan. 4 

Do 

Feb. 1 

Feb. 3 

Feb. 10 

Do 

Feb. 11 

Feb. 17 

Do 

Mar. 9 

Mar. 18 

Apr. 15 

Apr. 18 

Apr. 28 

May 2 

May 4 

May 7 

May 15 

Do 

May 22 

May 23 

June 15 

June 19 

Julyl 

July 20 

Sept. 1 

Do 

Sept. 10 

Sept. 11 

Sept. 14 

Oct. 30 

Oct. 1 

Dec. 14 

Do 



(6) 



A 
B 

C. 
D 
E 
F 

G 
H 
I. 
J. 
K 
L 
M 
N 
O 
P, 
Q 
R 
S. 
T, 
U 
V 



w.. 

X... 

Y... 

z... 

AA.. 
AB.. 
AC. 
AD.. 
AE.. 
AF.. 
AG.. 
AH. 
AI.. 
AJ.. 
AK. 
AL.. 
AM. 
AN.. 
AO.. 
AP.. 
AQ.. 
AR.. 
AS.. 
AT.. 
AU.. 
AV.. 
AW., 
AX. 
AY.. 
AZ.. 
BA.. 
BB.. 
BC. 
BD.. 



(c) 



81,000 
1,000 



1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 



1.000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 



,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 
,000 



id) 



S. &T. 

S. &T. 



S. &T. 
S. & T. 
S. & T. 
S. & T. 



Bk. 
Bk. 
Bk. 

Clk. 
S. & T. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Bk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 
S. &T. 

Bk. 
S. &T. 



Bk. 

Bk. 

Bk. 
S. &T. 

Bk. 

Bk. 

Bk. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 
S. &T. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 
S. &T. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 

Clk. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 



(«) 



82.65 
80.47 



76. 78 
81.90 
74. 51 
78.74 



76.92 
77.80 
83.70 
77.70 
82.62 
71.75 
75.40 
81.60 
74.60 
70.40 
76.00 
80.20 
77.15 
79.69 
82.15 
87.47 



78.75 
71.22 
76.73 
85.56 
80.92 
74.85 
75.03 
83.15 
78.17 
74.45 
73.75 
84.10 
76.95 
83.85 
78.21 
84.15 
74.00 
84.15 
80.71 
76.10 
80.85 
74.55 
76.10 
87.20 
83.00 
80.17 
80.04 
84.47 
81.82 
80.73 
81.55 
80.85 
82.57 
81.84 



(/) 



351,200 
1,400 



1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 



1,200 
1,000 
1,000 
1,200 
1,200 
1,000 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
1,000 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 



,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,000 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 
,200 



(g) 



74-232 
81- 94 



93-232 

91-232 

7-232 

21-232 



129-232 
10- 61 
28- 61 
135-232 
140-232 
18- 61 
188-232 
177-232 
183-232 
181-232 
176-232 
20- 61 
186-232 
175-232 
124-232 
63-232 



120-232 
226-232 

86-232 

6-232 

105-232 

118-232 

205-232 

45-232 
127-232 
211-232 
115-232 
147-232 
200-232 

75-232 
182-2:32 

24- 61 
197-232 
163-232 

62-232 
202-232 
184-232 
209-232 
178-232 
198-232 
169-232 
109-232 
165-232 
192-r232 
159-232 
193-232 
143-232 
110-232 

68-232 
117-232 



(ft) 



168-387 
81-387 



187-387 
185-387 
101-387 
115-387 



223-387 
336-387 
354-387 
229-387 
234-387 
344-387 
282-387 
271-387 
277-387 
275-387 
270-387 
346-387 
280-387 
269-387 
218-387 
157-387 



214-387 
320-387 
180-387 
100-387 
199-387 
212-387 
299-387 
139-387 
221-387 
305-387 
209-387 
241-387 
294-387 
169-387 
276-387 
350-387 
291-387 
257-387 
156-387 
296-387 
278-387 
303-387 
272-387 
292-387 
263-387 
203-387 
259-387 
286-387 
253-387 
287-387 
237-387 
204-38? 
162-387 
211-387 



23 
52 
56 
24 
25 
63 
41 
34 
38 
36 
33 
54 
40 
32 
21 
7 



20 
51 
11 

2 
14 
19 
48 

5 
22 
50 
17 
27 
46 
10 
37 
55 
44 
29 

6 
47 
39 
49 
35 
45 
31 
15 
30 
42 
28 
43 
26 
16 

8 
18 



APPORTION'MEN'T OF APPOINTMENTS. 



29 



Table 5. — Clerks certified to the War Department by the Civil Service Commission between 
Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were appointed, the civil- 
service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service- examination ratings, 
their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efiiciency ratings Sept. 1, 1911 — 
Continued. 

OFFICE OF THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL. 



Date appointed. 





Salary at 


Name. 


wtiich ap- 
pointed. 




(6) 


(c) 


A 


840 


B 


840 


C 


840 


D 


840 


E 


840 


F 


840 


G 


840 


H 


840 


I 


840 


J 


840 


K 


840 


L 


840 


M 


1,000 


N 


840 


O 


900 



Civil-service- 



Register. 



Rating. 



Salary- 
Sept. 1, 
1911. 



Departmental efficiency rat- 
ing Sept. 1, 1911. 



Relative 

standing 

among 

clerks of 

same 

salary. 



Relative 
standing 

among 
clerks of 

various 
salaries. 



Relative 

standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 



(a) 

1905, 

Sept. 12 

Oct. 16 

Nov. 27 

1906, 

May 17 

Dec. 17 

1908. 

Feb.l 

Mar. 2 

Apr. 1 

Apr. 3 

Apr. 13 

May 11 

May 19 

May 25 

June 29 

Oct. 12 



{d) 



S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 



S. &T. 

S. &T. 



S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 



80.41 
80.96 
78.32 



84.27 
76.68 



73.95 
77.10 

77.07 
78.16 
79.90 
71.46 
74.86 
77.79 
77.01 
79.84 



(/) 



1,200 
1,400 
1,200 



1,200 
1,200 



1,000 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 

900 
1,000 
1,000 

900 
1,000 
1,000 



(?) 



14- 58 
18- 27 
13- 58 



15- 58 
47-58 



6- 40 
55- 58 
49-58 
54- 58 

5- 14 

3- 40 

4- 40 

6- 14 

5- 40 

7- 40 



(ft) 



41-139 
18-139 
40-139 



62-139 
74r-139 



91-139 
82-139 
76-139 
81-139 

130-139 
88-139 
89-139 

131-139 
90-139 
92-139 



OFFICE OF THE COMMISSARY GENERAL. 



1906. 
Feb. 12 


A 

B 

C 

D 

E 


900 
900 
900 

900 
900 


S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 

S. &T. 
S. &T. 


78.39 
82.27 
75.27 

80.12 
76.30 


1,200 
1,200 
1,200 

1,200 
1,000 


11- 20 
3- 20 
16- 20 

14- 20 
2- 16 


11- 36 
3-36 
16-36 

14- 36 
22- 36 


2 


Oct. 26 


1 


Nov. 1 


4 


1908. 
Mar. 17 


3 


July 13 


5 







BUREAU OF INSULAR AFFAIRS. 



1905. !». 

Mar. 20 

Apr. 27 

Nov. 13 

1907. 

Apr. 22 

Dec. 16 

1908. 

May 14 

June 15 

July 17 

July 27 



A 


900 


B 


900 


C 


900 


D 


900 


E 


900 


F 


900 


G 


900 


H 


1,000 


I 


900 



S. &T. 
S. &T. 
S. &T. 



S. &T. 
S. &T. 



Bk. 
S. &T. 

Bk. 
S. &T. 



79.84 
81.50 
77.60 



76.83 
80.91 



75.83 
72.67 
80.37 
76.19 



1,200 
1,400 
1,200 



1,200 
1,200 



1,200 
1,200 
1,000 
1,000 



1- 19 
3- 10 

2- 19 



5- 19 
17- 19 



18- 19 

19- 19 
1- 16 

13- 16 



11- 45 
3- 45 

12- 45 



15- 45 
27- 45 



28- 45 

29- 45 

30- 45 
42- 45 



By rearranging these efficiency ratings, however, according to 
entrance examination averages, and taking the average of the ratings 
thus arranged, a different result is obtained. In the following table 
the efficienc}^ ratings of these clerks are arranged according to civil- 
service ratings. All clerks who entered the service on civil-service 
ratings below 75 are placed in the first column; all clerks who entered 
the service on civil-service ratings at 75 but less than 80 are placed 



30 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



in the second column; all clerks who entered at 80 but less than 85 
are placed in the third column; and all clerks who entered at 85 or 
higher are placed in the fourth column. The table shows that in the 
Office of The Adjutant General the 10 clerks who entered on civil-serv- 
ice examinations general averages below 75 have an average relative 
standing of 263.7 from the top of a list of 387 clerks; that those who 
entered at 75 but less than 80 have an average relative standing of 
249.6, or 14 places higher than the first group; that those who en- 
tered at 80 but less than 85 have an average relative standing of 231, 
or 19 places higher than the next lower group, and that those who 
entered at 85 or above have an average relative standing of 183, or 
48 places above the next lower group, or a total difference between 
the highest and the lowest group of 81 places on a list of 387 clerks. 

Similar tables showing the standing of clerks in the office of the 
Quartermaster General, the Commissary General, and the Bureau of 
Insular Affairs prove that the results in the office of The Adjutant 
General are not an exception, for in every other office in the War 
Department, even where so few as five clerks are considered, the 
test demonstrates that one's abffity to pass a civil-service examina- 
tion is a fair test of his probable future efficiency as a clerk. 

Table Q.— Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed 
to the Office of The Adjutant General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905,. and Dec. 
31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. 



• Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

387 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

387 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 
standing 

among 
387 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

387 clerks. 


E 

L 



P 

AB.... 
AF.... 
AG.... 
AM.... 
AR.... 
X 


101 
344 
277 
275 
212 
305 
209 
291 
303 
320 


C 

F 

G 

H 

J 

M 

I-.:::::: 

T 

W 

Y 

AC 

AE 

AI 

AK 

AP 

AS 


187 
115 
223 
336 
229 
282 
270 
280 
269 
214 
180 
299 
221 
294 
276 
296 
272 


A 

B 

D 

I 

K 

N 

R 

U 

AA 

AD 

AH 

AJ 

AT/ 

AN 

AO 

i§-.:::: 

AV 

AW 

AX 

AY 

AZ 

BA 

BB 

BC 

BD 


168 
81 
185 
354 
234 
271 
346 
218 
199 
139 
241 
169 
350 
257 
156 
278 
263 
203 
259 
286 
253 
287 
237 
204 
162 
211 


V 

AT 

Z 


157 
292 
100 


10 


3,637 


17 


4,243 


26 


6,011 


3 


549 


Departmental average relative standing among 387 clerks. 


263.7 


249.6 


231.2 


183.0 



I 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



31 



Table 7. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed 
to the Office of the Quartermaster General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and 
Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

139 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

139 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

139 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

139 clerks. 


F 

K 

L 


91 

88 
89 


C 

E 

G 

H 

I 

J 

M 

N 




40 
74 
82 
76 
81 
130 
131 
90 
92 


A 

B 

D 


41 
18 
62 






3 


268 


9 


796 


3 


121 






Departmental average relative standing among 139 clerks. 


89.3 


88.4 


40.3 





Table 8. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed 
to the Office of the Commissary General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905,\cLnd 
Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

36 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

36 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

36 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
36 clerks. 






A 

C 

E 


11 

16 
22 


B 

D 


3 
14 










3 


49 


2 


17 






. Departmental average relative standing among 36 clerks. 




16.3 


8.5 





32 



APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



Table 9. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed 
to the Bureau of Insular Affairs, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 
1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

45 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

45 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

45 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

45 clerks. 


G 


29 


A 

C 

D 

F 

I 


11 
12 
15 

28 
42 


B 

E 

H 


3 

27 
30 






1 


29 


5 


108 


3 


60 






Departmental average relative standing among 45 clerks. 


29.0 


21.6 


20.0 





The following tables are made up of the relative standings of clerks 
appointed in the various offices of the War Department between Jan- 
uary 1, 1905, and December 31, 1908. The numbers representing 
the relative standing of the clerks are those covering the entire 
personnel of each office, including clerks who entered the service 
prior to January 1, 1905, and also subsequent to December 31, 1908. 
The numbers representing the relative standing of clerks who entered 
the service prior to January 1, 1905, and subsequent to December 31, 
1908, are, however, not included in the tables, because it was beheved 
it would not be fair to compare clerks who had been in the service a 
very long time with those who had been in the service a very short 
time. The comparison, therefore, is made between clerks entering 
the service during the four years beginning January 1, 1905, and end- 
ing December 31, 1908. Recognizing the possibility that a use of 
only a part of the numbers representing the relative standings of all 
the clerks in their numerical order might be claimed to distort results, 
the following tables were prepared, covering only those clerks who 
entered the service between January 1, 1905, and December 31, 1908, 
and instead of using the numbers representing their relative standings 
among all of the clerks in their respective offices, each clerk is given 
a new number so that the clerks are shown in the order of relative 
standing among themselves, from 1 to 56, the number 1 being given 
to the person standing highest, number 2 to the second, 3 to the third, 
and so on, and 56 to the person standing lowest. These tables show 
even greater differences than did the previous tables in the efficiency 
of the clerks entering on high and on low ratings and are corroborative 
of the results shown by the first tables. 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



33 



Tabi.^ 10.— Average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed to the Office 
oj I he Adjutant General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec 31 1908 
on various civil-service examination ratings. ' ' 







Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 




Depart- 


Depart- 




Depart- 




Depart- 




mental 


mental 




mental 




mental 




relative 




relative 




relative 






Name. 


standing 


Name. 


standing 


Name. 


standing 


Name. 


standing 




them- 




among 
them- 




among 
them- 




among 




selves. 




selves. 




selves. 




selves. 


E 


3 


C 


13 


A 


9 


V 


7 


L 


53 


F 


4 


B 


1 


Z 


2 





38 


G 


23 


D 


12 


AT 


45 


P 


36 


H 


52 


I 


56 






X 


51 


J 


24 


K 


25 






AB.... 


19 


M 


41 


N 


34 






AF.... 


50 


Q 


33 


R 


54 






AG.... 


17 


s 


40 


U 


21 






AM.... 


44 


T 


32 


AA 


14 






AR.... 


49 


W 


20 


AD 


5 










Y 


11 


AH 


27 










AC 


48 


AJ 


10 










AE 


22 


AL 


55 










AI 


46 


AN 


29 










AK 


37 


AO 


6 










AP 


47 


AQ 


39 










AS 


35 


AU 

AV 

AW 

AX 

AY 

AZ 

BA 

BB 

BC 

BD 


31 
15 
30 
42 
28 
43 
26 
16 
8 
18 






10 


360 


17 


528 


26 


654 


3 


54 


Average relative standing among themselves. 


36.0 


31.1 


25.2 


18.0 


Doc. 50, 


63-1 


-3 













34 



APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



Table 11. — Average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed to the Office 
of the Quartermaster General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 
1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 




Depart- 




Depart- 




Depart- 




Depart- 




mental 




mental 




mental 




mental 




relative 




relative 




relative 




relative 


Name. 


standing 


Name. 


standing 


Name. 


standing 


Name. 


standing 




among 




among 




among 




among 




them- 




them- 




them- 




them- 




selves. 




selves. 




selves. 




selves. 


F 


12 


C 


2 


A 


3 






K 


9 


E 


5 


B 


1 






L 


10 


G 

H 

I 

J 

M 

N 




8 
6 
7 
14 
15 
11 
13 


D 


4 






3 


31 


9 


81 


3 


8 






Average relative standing among themselves. 


10.3 


9.0 


2.7 





Table 12. — Average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed to the Office 
of the Commissary General, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. 31, 1908, 
on various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil-service examtaation general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 






A 

B 

E 


2 
4 
5 


B 

D 


1 
3 










3 


11 


2 


4 






Average relative standing among themselves. 




3.7 


2.0 





APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



35 



Table 13. — Average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed to the Bureau 
of Insular Affairs, War Department, between Jan. 1, 1905, and Dec. SI, 1908, on 
various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relatiA'e 
standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
them- 
selves. 


G 


7 


A 

C 

D 

F 

I 


2 
3 
4 
6 
9 


B 

E 

H 


1 
5 

8 






1 


7 


5 


24 


3 


14 






Average relative standing among themselves. 


7.0 


4.8 


4.7 





A similar study of the efficiency records of the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor gives similar results. The following table, furnished 
b;^ the department, gave the dates of appointment, the names (by 
initial) of all employees appointed from various registers, the general 
averages received by the employees in their civil-service examination, 
their salaries on September 1, 1911, and their efficiency rating at that 
time: 

Table 14. — Clerics certified to the Department of Commerce and Labor between date of 
organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were appointed, 
the civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service examination 
ratings, their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efficiency ratings Sept. 1, 
1911. 



Date ap- 
pointed. 



Name. 



Salary at 
which ap- 
pointed. 



Civil service- 



Register. 



Rating. 



Salary 

Sept. 1, 

1911. 



Depart- 
mental 

efficiency 
rating 

Sept. 1, 
1911. 



Relative 
standing 

among 
clerks of 

various 
salaries. 



(o) 



(6) 



(c) 



(d) 



(e) 



(/) 



(<7) 



(A) 



Office of the Secretary. 



1904. 
Feb. 24 

1907. 
Apr. 1 
July 1 
Nov. 26 

1908. 
Mar. 26 
Aug. 3 



A 


S900 


B 


900 


C 


900 


D 


900 


E 


900 


E 


900 



Stenographer and typewriter 



Clerk 

....do 

stenographer and typewriter 

Typewriter 

....do 



80.48 


$1, 600 


96.2 


78.65 
82.50 
75.32 


1,000 
1,200 
1,200 


90.5 
100.0 
97.8 


81.33 
77.66 


1,400 
1,000 


95.5 
92.5 



36 



APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMEISTTS. 



Table 14. — Clerks certified to the Department of Commerce and Labor between date of 
organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908. the salaries at which they were appointed, 
the civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service examination 
ratings, their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efficiency ratings Sept. 1, 
i9ii— Continued. 



Date ap- 
pointed. 



Name. 



Salary at 
which api- 
pointed. 



Civil service- 



Register. 



Rating. 



Salary- 
Sept. 1, 
1911. 



Depart- 
mental 
efficiency 
rating 
Sept. 1 
1911. 



Relative 
standing 
among 
clerks of 
various 
salaries. 



(a) 



(6) 



(c) 



{d) 



(e) 



(/) 



ig) 



(h) 



Bureau of Statistics. 



1904. 
Sept 10 

1905. 
Jan 13 

1906. 
Oct. 11 
Nov. 5 

1907. 
Mar. 20 
June 1 
July 10 
Aug. 1 
Aug. 30 



A 

B 

C. 
D 

E 
F, 
G 
H 
I. 



900 



900 
900 



900 
900 
900 
900 
900 



Stenographer and typewriter. 
Bookkeeper 



Clerk.. 
do- 



Stenographer and typewriter 

Bookkeeper 

do 

Clerk 

do 



72.92 


SI, 200 


93.5 


76.82 


1,400 


97.6 


79.48 
78.45 


1,200 
1,400 


94.9 
100.0 


78.06 
75. 15 
83.45 
73.35 
78.50 


1,200 
1,000 
1,200 
1,000 
1,000 


94.5 
94.1 
99.8 
91.0 
94.5 



Bureau of Corporations. 



1904. 
Feb 24 
Mar. 1 
July 1 
July 1 
Aug. 29 

1905. 
Aug. 16 
Nov. 21 

1906. 
Aug. 6 
Aug. 20 
Sept. 4 

1907. 
Jan. 15 
May 1 
May 1 
Aug. 5 
Aug. 12 
Aug. 12 
Oct. 28 
Nov. 18 

1908. 
Feb. 24 
Mar. 2 
Apr. 13 
Apr. 21 



900 
900 
900 
900 



900 
900 



900 
720 
720 



720 
900 
900 
840 
840 
900 
900 
720 



720 
720 
900 
720 



Stenographer and typewriter. 

do 

...do 

Clerk 

Stenographer and typewriter. 



Clerk 

Stenographer and typewriter. 



do 

Clerk 

Stenographer and typewriter. 



Stenographer 

Stenographer and typewriter. 

Clerk 

do 

do 

do 

Typewriter 

Clerk 



.do. 
.do. 



Stenographer and typewriter. 
Typewriter 



81.43 


SI, 800 


100.0 


81.14 


1,600 


100.0 


82.63 


1,600 


100.0 


70.35 


1,200 


92.5 


82.17 


1,800 


97.2 


71.05 


1,380 


98.2 


77.12 


1,200 


98.2 


79.89 


1,620 


99.8 


70.00 


1,200 


87.7 


76.55 


1,260 


100.0 


77.62 


1,200 


100.0 


79.37 


1,260 


98.8 


82.65 


1,440 


99.2 


79. .55 


1,200 


94.9 


77.90 


1,440 


99.0 


81.85 


1,260 


99.8 


83.09 


1,200 


99.6 


80.90 


1,200 


94.5 


82.56 


1,200 


95.2 


78.20 


1,000 


90.9 


73.10 


1,200 


98.2 


70.03 


900 


100.0 



APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



37 



Table 14. — Clerks certified to the Department of Commerce and Labor between date of 
organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at which they were appointed, 
the civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service examination 
ratings, their salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efficiency ratings Sept. 1, 
1911 — Continued. 



Date ap- 
pointed. 



(a) 



Name. 



(6) 



Salary at 
wliich ap- 
pointed. 



(c) 



Civil service — 



Register. 



(d) 



Rating. 



(«) 



Salary 

Sept. 1, 

1911. 



(/) 



Depart- 
mental 
efficiency 
rating 
Sept. 1, 
1911. 



Bureau of the Census. 
(Editorial clerks.) 



(g) 



Relative 
standing 

among 
clerks of 

various 
salaries. 



(ft) 



1905. 






Nov. 1 


A 


$900 


Nov. 9 


B 


900 


1906. 






Aue. 1 


C 


900 


Sept. 14 


D 


900 


190S. 






May 4 


E 


900 


Nov. 7 


F 


900 


Nov. 23 


G 


900 



(1) 

« 

(0 

(1) 

Editor 
....do. 
....do. 



82.50 
76.50 



72.50 
75. 00 



77.11 
77.29 
83.38 



$1,600 
1,400 



1,200 
1,600 



1,200 
1,200 
1,200 



99.4 
99.8 



92.5 



87.2 
97.8 
92.3 



Clerks and stenographers and typewriters. 



1904.- 
July 20 

1905. 
July 1 

1907. 
Mar. 7 
Apr. 26 
May 7 
July 1 
Aug. 5 
Aug. 24 
Dec. 6 
Dec. 6 

1908. 
Jan. 21 
Feb. 15 
Feb. 24 
Feb. 27 
Sept. 1 
Dec. 1 



A 

B 

C. 
D 
E 
F. 
G, 
H 
I. 
J. 

K 
L. 
M 
N 
O 
P, 



900 
900 
900 
900 
900 
900 
900 



900 
900 
900 
900 



Stenographer and typewriter 
Clerk 



.do. 



Stenographer and typewriter 

Clerk 

do 

Stenographer and typewriter 

do... - 

Clerk 

do 



Stenographer and typewriter. 

do 

Clerk 

do 

Bookkeeper , 

do - 



85.68 


$1,200 


94.3 


78.04 


1,000 


80.8 


84.22 


1,200 


90.2 


95.46 


1,200 


87.2 


82.86 


1,200 


95.5 


85.62 


1,200 


88.0 


85.62 


1,200 


99.4 


81.86 


1,200 


83.6 


85. 85. 


1,200 


96.4 


83.85 


1,200 


91.5 


82.69 


1,200 


86.6 


80.27 


1,200 


93.3 


83.67 


1,200 


92.3 


81.70 


1,200 


98.8 


73.25 


900 


86.4 


83.62 


1,200 


99.0 



Bureau of Standards. 



1905. 
May 25 

1906. 
Nov. 5 
Nov. 19 

1907. 
Jan. 21 
Oct. 9 



Jan. 14 
July 7 



A 

B 

C. 

D 

E 

F 
G 



■1720 



900 
720 



900 
720 



720 
720 



Stenographer and typewriter. 



do 

Typewriter. 



Stenographer and typewriter. 
do 



Typewriter. 
do 



75.10 


$1,600. 


100.0 


73.01 
71.42 


1,200 
1,200 


91.9 
100.0 


80.41 
75.95 


1,400 
1,200 


92.5 
96.4 


72.50 
79.53 


1,000 
900 


92.3 
90.9 



1 Editorial and statistical. 



38 



APPOKTIOFMElSrT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



Table 14. — Clerks certified to the Department of Commerce and Labor between date of 
organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, the salaries at ivhich they loere appointed, 
the civil service registers from which they were certified, their civil-service examination 
ratings, thdr salaries on Sept. 1, 1911, and their departmental efiiciency ratings Sept. 1, 
W 11— Continued. 



Date ap- 
pointed. 



Name. 



Salary at 
which ap- 
pointed. 



Civil service- 



Register. 



Rating. 



Salary 

Sept. 1, 

1911. 



Depart- 
mental 
efficiency 
rating 
Sept. 1, 
1911. 



Relative 
standing 
among 
clerks of 
various 
salaries. 



(a) 



(6) 



(c) 



(d) 



(e) 



(/) 



(9) 



(ft) 



Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization. 



1905. 
June 3 
July 1 

1906. 
Aug. 1 
Aug. 8 

1907. 

Mar. 28 

July 1 

July 1 

July 1 

July 8 

Aug. 5 

Aug. 14 

Nov. 20 

Dec. 12 

Dec. 18 

1908. 
Jime 11 
July 2 
Oct. 26 
Dec. 21 



A 


.S900 


B 


900 


C 


900 


D 


900 


E 


900 


F 


900 


G 


900 


H 


900 


I 


900 


J 


900 


K 


900 


L 


900 


M 


900 


N 


900 


O 


900 


P 


900 


Q 


900 


R 


900 



Clerk 

Stenographer and typewriter. 



.do. 
.do. 



Typewriter 

Clerk 

Stenographer and typewriter. 

....do 

....do 

Typewriter 

Stenographer and typewriter. 

Clerk 

Stenographer and typewriter. 
Typewriter 



Stenographer and typewriter. 

do 

do 

....do... 



89.29 


81,800 


99.6 


80.77 


1,400 


87.0 


80.35 


1,800 


99.4 


79.85 


1,800 


99.0 


81.33 


1,000 


77.8 


83.97 


1,600 


94.7 


85.22. 


1,600 


96.6 


77.98 


1,400 


87.8 


77.64 


1,200 


87.6 


77.12 


1,200 


99.6 


75.02 


1,200 


89.2 


85.05 


1,200 


88.6 


77.00 


1,000 


93.5 


85.61 


1,400 


93.5 


81.49 


1,200 


88.4 


80.86 


1,200 


93.0 


77.72 


1,000 


93.5 


80.95 


1,000 


93.9 



Coast and Geodetic Survey. 



1904. 
Oct. 13 

1906. 
Feb. 1 
June 21 

1907. 
Sept. 3 
Oct. 15 

1908. 
Mar. 11 



A 


S720 


B 

C 


720 
720 


D 

E 


720 
720 


F 


720 



Typewriter. 



..do. 



.do. 



.do. 
.do. 



.do. 



72.82 


$1,200 


98.0 


79.00 
78.58 


1,200 
1,000 


99.8 
98.0 


71.14 

78.70 


900 
900 


100.0 
93.2 


75.06 


900 


98.0 



Lighthouse Service. 



1906. 
July IS 
July 20 
Dec. 24 

1908. 
Jan. 2 



A 
B 

C. 

D 



720 
720 



1,000 



Stenographer and typewriter, 

....do 

....do 

....do 



76.99 
76.60 
80.00 



.11,200 
1,200 
1,200 



1,200 



99.4 
99.6 
100.0 



94.2 



In the following tables the departmental efficiency ratings for vari- 
ous bureaus under the Department of Commerce and Labor are 
presented, arranged according to civil-service entrance examination 
averages. The averages of the ratmgs given at the bottom of each table 



APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 



39 



show the same results that are shown on the tables covering the War 
Departnient: It is that, on the average, the clerks doing the most 
efficient work in the departments are those who passed the highest 
entrance examinations. While here and there an mdividual is found 
whose standmg is comparatively high while his entrance examina- 
tion rating was comparatively low, yet the average relative standing 
of the employees corresponds with their relative standing in the 
examinations. The average relative standing of employees in the 
Secretary's office who received between 80 and 85 in their examina- 
tions is 2, whereas that of those who received between 75 and 80 is 5. 
In the Bureau of Statistics those whose average on entrance examina- 
tions was between 80 and 85 have an average relative standing of 3, 
those whose examination average was between 75 and 80 have an 
average relative standing of 4.5, and those whose examination aver- 
age was between 70 and 75 have a standing of 7.5. In the Bureau of 
Corporations, those whose examination average on entrance was 
high, that is, between 80 and 85, stand ahead of the others on the 
efficiency record, their average relative standing being 8.3 as against 
11.9 m the case of those with examination ratings between 75 and 80, 
and 16.6 in the case of those with examination averages between 70 
and 75. The showing is the same in all the tables except the one 
covering editorial clerks in the Bureau of the Census, and the one 
for the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The averages of the editorial 
clerks show a slight irregularity, but as between the averages of those 
who entered highest and of those who entered lowest the results 
correspond to the other tables. The table for the Coast and Geodetic 
Survey is an exception, due perhaps to the fact that not more than 
two of the clerks were appointed in any one year, and to the further 
fact that the number of clerks is too small to msure true averages. 

Table 15. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed 
to the office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Labor, between date of organ- 
ization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
6 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
6 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
6 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
6 clerks. 






B 

i) 

F 


6 
4 
5 


A 

C 

E 


1 
3 
2 






■ ' - -1 ■■' ■ 


3 


15 


3 


6 






Departmental average relative standing among 6 clerks. 




5.0 


2.0 





40 



APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



Table 16.- — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed 
to the Bureau of Statistics, Department of Commerce and Labor, betweendate of organ- 
ization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less tban 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
9 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
9 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

9 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
9 clerks. 


A 

H 


6 
9 


B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

I 


2 

4 
1 
5 

8 
7 


G 


3 






2 


15 


6 


27 


1 


3 






Departmental average relative standing among 9 clerks. 


7.5 


4.5 


3.0 



Table 17. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed 
to the Bureau of Corporations, Department of Commerce and Labor, between^date of 
organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination 
ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
22 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

22 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

22 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

22 clerks. 


D 

F 

I 

U 

V 


19 

8 
20 
14 
22 


G 

H 

J 

K 

L 

N 



T 


15 
3 
9 
12 
11 
17 
7 
21 


A 

B 

C 

E 

M 

P 

Q 

R 

S 


1 
4 
5 
2 
6 

10 
13 
18 
16 






5 


83 


8 


95 


9 


75 






Departmental average relative standing among 22 clerks. 


10.6 


11.9 


8.3 





APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 



41 



Table 18.— Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of editorial clerks 
appointed to the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce and Labor between 
date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examina- 
tion ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 hut less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
7 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

7 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
7 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
7 clerks. 


C 


5 


B 

D 

E 

F 


3 
1 

7 
4 


A 

G 


2 
6 






1 


5 


4 


15 


2 


8 






Departmental average relative standing among 7 clerks. 


5 


3.3 


4.0 





Table 1^ .—Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks and stenog- 
raphers and typewriters appointed to the Bureau of the Census, Department of Com- 
merce and Labor, between date of organization of department and Dec. 31 1908 on 
various civil-service examination ratings. ' ' 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but legs than 75. 


75 biit less than SO. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 16 
clerks anc 
stenog- 
raphers 
and type- 
writers. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 16 
clerks and 
stenog- 
raphers 
and type- 
writers. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 16 
clerks and 
stenog- 
raphers 
and type- 
writers. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 16 
clerks and 
stenog- 
raphers 
fnd type- 
writers. 





16 


■B 


15 


C 

E 

H 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

P 


10 
5 

14 
9 

13 
7 
8 
3 
2 


A 

D 

F 

G 

I 


12 
11 
1 

4 


1 


16 


1 


15 


9 


71 


5 


34 


Departmental average relative standing among 16 clerks and stenographers and 
typewriters. 


16.0 


15.0 


7.9 


6.8 



42 



APPOETIOISTMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



Table 20. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerics appointed 
to the Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce and Labor, between date of organi- 
zation of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
7 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
7 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
7 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
7 clerks. 


B 

C 

F 


5 
3 
6 


A 

E 

G 


1 

4 

7 


D 


2 






3 


14 


3 


12 


1 


2 






Departmental average relative standing among 7 clerks. 


4.7 


4.0 


2.0 





Table|21. — Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed 
to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Commerce and Labor, 

I between date of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service 
examination ratings. 



CivU-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

18 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

18 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 

standing 
among 

18 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

18 clerks. 






D 

H 

I 

J 

K 

M 

Q 


3 
7 

14 
9 
11 
16 
15 


B 

C 

E 

F 



P 

R 


8 
2 
18 
5 
13 
10 
17 


A 

G 

L 

N 


1 

4 
12 
ti 






7 


75 


7 


73 


4 


23 


Departmental average relative standing among 18 clerks. 




10.7 


10.4 


5.8 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



43 



Table 22.— Departmental average relative standing on Sept. i;i911, of clerhs appointed 
to the Coast and Geodetic Survey, Department of Commerce and Labor, bettveen date 
of organization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination 
ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than SO. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

6 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
6 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

6 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
6 clerks. 


A 

D...... 


2 

4 


B 

C 

E 

F 


1 
3 
6 
5 










2 : 6 

1 


4 


15 










Departmental average relative standing among 6 clerks. 


3.0 


3.8 





Table 2^.— Departmental average relative standing on Sept. 1, 1911, of clerks appointed 
to the Lighthouse Service, Department of Commerce and Labor, between date of organ- 
ization of department and Dec. 31, 1908, on various civil-service examination ratings. 



Civil-service examination general averages. 


70 but less than 75. 


75 but less than 80. 


80 but less than 85. 


85 and over. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

4 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 
relative 
standing 
among 
4 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

4 clerks. 


Name. 


Depart- 
mental 

relative 

standing 
among 

4 clerks. 






A 

B 

D 


3 
2 
4 


C 


1 










3 


9 


1 


1 






Departmental average relative standing among 4 clerks. 




3.0 


1.0 





It might be pointed out in this connection that the results shown 
by this comparison of efficiency records with examination ratings are 
in line with conclusions reached by eminent educators that the men 
who take highest rank in college work are the most successful men in 
after life. Prof. Edwin G. Dexter, of the University of Illinois, pub- 
lished in the Popular Science Monthly for February, 1903, an article 
entitled "High-grade men: In college and out," in which he gave 
the results of comparing the membership in Phi Beta Kappa, the 
honorary Greek- letter college fraternity, with the mention in "Who's 
Who in America," the annual biographical cyclopedia published in 



44 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

Chicago. His conclusion was that the Phi Beta Kappa man's chances 
of success are nearly three times those of his classmates as a whole. 
"Who's Who in America" having been criticized as a criterion of 
success, a new standard was taken for comparison. The Nation of 
December 15, 1910, gives the following account of that investigation, 
the results of which would seem to confirm Prof. Dexter's inquiry: 

The class of 1894 at Harvard was selected for analysis. Three men, one of whom 
was Dean Bdggs, were asked to select from this class the names of those men who, 
during their 15 years since graduation, had achieved distinct success, each judge 
determining for himself his definition of that term. Twenty-three members of 
the class were agreed upon as deserving of this recognition by at least two of 
the three judges. The college records of these men were then compared with 
those of 23 of their classmates chosen at random, and it was found that there were 
between three and four times as many "A's" among the former as among the latter, 
the exact figures being 196 and 56. 

The following quotation from an article by President Lowell, of 
Harvard, on ''College studies and professional schools" is also inter- 
esting in this connection : 

The conclusions to be drawn from the whole matter are these: That it makes cona- 
paratively little difference to what subject a man devotes himself in college, but it 
makes an immense difference how good a scholar he is; and that the men who are 
destined to take the highest rank in the law and medical schools are markedly better 
scholars both in the preparatory schools and in college than their fellows. In intel- 
lectual power, as in other things, the boy is the father of the man. 

VI. RATING IN EXAMINATION AS AN INDEX OF FUTURE 

EFFICIENCY. 

The remarkable degree to which the efficiency ratings of the 
employees correspond with their entrance examination marks would 
seem to be proof that the Civil Service Commission's examinations 
for testing the relative fitness of apphcants are effective and practi- 
cal, and that they are a fair index of the applicant's probable future 
efficiency as a clerk. 

The Civil Service Commission would seem to have been not unmind- 
ful in the early years of its histor}^ of the fact that a strict mathe- 
matical apportionment of appointments among the States is not con- 
sistent with the best interests of the Government. In its third annual 
report the Civil Service Commission laid stress on the "general rule" 
that ' ' a man taken from the head of a register is far more hkely to be 
a valuable public servant than one taken from the foot." The argu- 
ment at that time was as follows: 

It could be shown statistically that those who pass highest in the examinations are 
likely to make the most useful public servants. The first person to enter the public 
service anywhere under the present rules — a young man at the post office at St. 
Louis — was the first in the competition, and he Avas the first to be promoted for merit 
at the end of his probation. The first person appointed under the rules to a depart- 
ment at Washington was a lady, who stood first on the competitive list of her sex. 
Her practical capacity has proved to be as excellent as her attainments. 

These cases but illustrate the general rule. A man taken from the head of a register 
is far more likely to be a valuable public servant than one taken from the foot, and 
therefore the examinations do test superior capacity for the public service. Already 
evidence on these points has so far appeared that the appointing officers object to 
going far down in grade on the registers. They prefer new examinations, which 
bring in some whose grade is higher. "There is probably not an appointing officer under 
the Government who would not object to the certifications to him for appointment 
being taken from the foot rather than the top of the registers. In these facts we have 
a practical estimate of the schoolmaster's test, and the expression of a general con- 
viction on the part of those best informed that the examinations test business ca- 
pacity. * * * (Third Annual Report, Civil Service Commission, pp. 34, 35, 36.) 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



45 



It would seem to be evident from this quotation that the Civil 
Service Commission has from the beginning realized that the mathe- 
matical apportionment of civil-service positions among the several 
States was a menace to the efficiency of the public service. The 
creation of the "nonapportioned service" and the adoption of the 
minute of May 14, 1910, would seem to indicate also that, in later 
years, it has not altered its opinion. That, during the past year, the 
commission has tacitly acknowledged the superior efficiency in office 
of those who pass highest in the entrance examinations is evidenced 
by the fact that in certifying eligibles for its own work, it has appar- 
ently so timed its certifications as to draw eligibles whose entrance 
marks on the average are considerably above the averages of eligibles 
certified to other offices. 

Table 24. — Average examination ratings of clerks certified to the Civil Service Commis- 
sion, the average examination ratings of clerks certified to other departments, and the 
difference between those certified to the Civil Service Commission and the other depart- 
ments. 

[Year, 1911; salaries offered, $720 to $1,020.] 



nepartment. 



Civil Service Commission 

Interior 

Treasury 

Interstate Commerce Commis- 
sion 

Commerce and Labor 

Navy 

War 

Agriculture 

other departments 2 



Number 
of certifi- 
cations. 



Average 

of all 
certifica- 
tions to 
depart- 
ment. 



86.43 
72.96 
76.58 

76.58 
76.70 
77.46 
77.74 
78.69 



Difler- 
ence.i 



13.47 

9.85 



9.73 
8.97 
8.69 
7.74 



Average 
of high- 
est certifi- 
cation to 
depart- 
ment. 



86.82 
75.18 
76.58 

76.58 
78.90 
78.50 
82.62 
79.05 



Differ- 
ence.! 



13.64 
12.24 

12.24 
9.92 

10.32 
6.20 
9.77 



Average 
of lowest 
certifica- 
tion to 
depart- 
ment. 



83.58 
71.30 
76.58 

76.58 
75.33 
76.42 
73.57 
78.33 



Differ- 
ence.! 



12.28 
7.00 

7.00 
8.25 
7.16 
10.01 
5.25 



1 The amount shown in this column is the difference between the average of the certifications to the 
CivU Service Commission and the average of the certifications to the other departments. 

2 No certifications. 



Table 25. — Average examination ratings of bookkeepers certified to the Civil Service Com- 
mission, the average examination ratings of bookkeepers certified to other departments, 
and the difference between those certified to the Civil Service Commission and the other 
departments. 

■ [Year, 1911; salaries oflered, S700 to $1,440.] 



Department. 


Number 
of certifi- 
cations. 


Average 

of all 
certifica- 
tions to 
depart- 
ment. 


Differ- 
ence.! 


Average 
of high- 
est certifi- 
cation to 
depart- 
ment. 


Differ- 
ence.! 


Average 
of lowest 
certifica- 
tion to 
depart- 
ment. 


Differ- 
ence.! 


Civil Service Commission 


3 

2 
3 
7 
8 
23 
5 
4 
5 
3 


84.26 

75.43 
75.94 
76.66 
77.64 
77.81 
77.87 
78.26 
78.71 
82.70 




88.95 

78.26 
77.41 
79.77 
81.93 
84.56 
81.29 
80.70 
81.85 
89.60 




78.82 

72.60 
74.91 
72.93 
74.44 
72.24 
74.47 
76.85 
74.75 
73.75 




Interstate Commerce Commis- 
sion 


8.83 
8.32 
7.60 
6.62 
6.45 
6.39 
6.00 
6.55 
1.56 


10.69 
11.54 
9.18 
7.02 
4.39 
7.66 
8.25 
7.10 
- .65 


6.22 


Treasury 


3.91 


War 


5.89 


Commerce and Labor 


4.38 


Post OflBce 


6.58 


Navy 


4.35 


Agriculture 


1.97 


Justice 


4.07 


Interior 


.07 


other departments 2 





















1 The amount shown in this column is the difference between the average of the certifications to the 
CivU Service Commission and the average of the certifications to the other departments. 
* No certifications. 



46 



APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



Table 26. — Average examination ratings of clerks certified to the Civil Service Commis- 
sion, the average examination ratings of clerks certified to other departments, and the 
difference between those certified to the Civil Service Commission and other departments. 

[Year, 1910; salaries offered, S720 to Sl,020.] 



Department. 


Number 
of certifi- 
cations. 


Average 

of all 
certifica- 
tions to 
depart- 
ment. 


Differ- 
ence.! 


Average 
of high- 
est certi- 
fication to 
depart- 
ment. 


Differ- 
ence.! 


Average 
of lowest 
certifica- 
tion to 
depart- 
ment. 


Differ- 
ence.! 




6 
2 

1 

2 

23 

6 

6 


82.10 
76.79 
77.22 

77.66 
77.77 
78.13 
79.32 




89.40 
79.72 
77.22 

79.00 

83.97 
80.27 
81.55 




78.25 
73.85 
77.22 

76.32 

74.28 
73.85 
77.57 




State 


5.31 

4.88 

4.44 
4.33 
3.97 

2.78 


9.68 
12.18 

10.40 
5.43 
9.13 

7.85 


4.40 




1.03 


Interstate Commerce Commis- 


1.93 


War 


3.97 


Commerce and Labor 


4.40 


Agriculture 


0.68 























1 The amount shown in this column is the difference between the average of the certifications to the Civil 
Service Commission and the average of the certifications to the other departments. 

2 No certifications. 



Table 27. — Average examination ratings of bookkeepers certified to the Civil Service Com- 
mission, the average examination ratings of bookkeepers certified to other departments, 
and the difference between those certified to the Civil Service Commission and other 
departments. 

[Year, 1910; salaries offered, $660 to $1,000.] 



Department. 


Number 
of certifi- 
cations. 


Average 

ofaU 
certifica- 
tions to 
depart- 
ment. 


Differ- 
ence.! 


Average 
of high- 
est certi- 
fication to 
depart- 
ment. 


Differ- 
ence.! 


Average 
of lowest 
certifica- 
tion to 
depart- 
ment. 


Differ- 
ence.! 




13 
1 
1 

14 
1 

11 


80.19 
74.79 
76.71 
77.80 
78.30 
78.70 




91.00 

74.79 
76.71 
80.83 
78.30 
82.70 




74.20 
74.79 
76.71 
74.94 
78.30 
74.62 




Interior 


5.40 
3.48 
2.39 
1.89 
1.49 


16.30 
14.38 
10.26 
12.79 
8.39 


.59 


Navy 


2.51 


Treasury 


.74 




4.10 


War 


.42 























1 The amount shown in this column is the difference between the average of the certifications to the Civil 
Service Commission and the average of the certifications to the other departments. 
* No certifications. 



APPOKTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



47 



■^ -^ OS CO CO cc o o h- 00 -^ -^ to 00 y:; o lo Oi CO :i; oo CO lo 

i-HC^i'-^oi'OCOCO'^C^lOOl lO ococoQOcooiiococo-^oJ 



'rt^ Tp CO CO 'tM '" 
lOiO C^ O IQ >- 

OcJiO-rOOOOOOiOiOOooo 



^ o o w ^ o o o o CO o o o o o 
o'O'd fi K Td xJ 'C^ Td '^ 'O ^o xJ 'O 'O 

^ • : ^ 






1— lOf-COOC^CStiOCOOt^f^OOi— iQit^ 
(3,[^,— lioCO-^rHOiiOOCIiiOiOCSIOiOi 

i-HC^t-^OOOiOCO'^'— '-H^iOC^oJO'"^ 



ACA 



SmS 



■ft ;-^ 






rfi O Tt^ '^ Tt< '^ Tf 
lO CO »0 iQ 'Q "O O 

o i6 o o o oo 



ic M tc r^ cc lo 00 

i-H ^ (M OS (M (M r-t 

'^ cq -^ '^ ^ 'i^ oi 

t^ 00 t-- b- t^ O I> 



g fi <^ I 

^Ph5^ 



OOCOt~-i— 'iCCJlCOOCOOl'-J-^COOOOOit^i— fb-Ot^C^t-- 
Ir^O»0'*(NiC<N*0'-'0-^0»r:)0000(MOO-, -^CNCOCCJCOOS 

c^riHo6"^a^ioioo6oi-Hb^uicoaiosicodcDcsc^iocdo6'H^ 
^-t^I>oo^-t^l^-c^^-^^ooGO^>-t>.t^t~^^>.^-ooool^-l>•^^-l>• 



3 i:^ 



31: 3 



fl 03 



>-i o 



tj .2 m M 'm g ^ „, .„, 



;S> ;:z;sSph>o:z; 



cr'^'--roo"or.--rcr».o"F-ro''-r oT oTt-Tc^cTocoio.— ii-h;o(n 



CC T-l T— I CO r 



i-H 1-1 CSI i-H 



<^<-^;^;^:^>: 






o 



i^fe 



<D t-t 05 

CO 3CC.O o 

£S §:;d fe'« 
08 t> £ >-e 









f^<^o 



<N C<3 00 00 (N C^ O O ^ ■* CO Cg 

TjH -^ ^ -^ r^ o- 00 1— I oi t^ "^ 
CX3 00 t^ t^ CO oi t^ «:> 



i-^cocooot-c^oo-^iot^ 



PI 


^ 




60 






=a 






>. 


■a 


CO 



48 APPOETIOISrMEISrT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

It is possible that, in the beginning, the Civil Service Commission 
may have been justified in ignoring the good-administration clause 
in the law and insisting on an exact mathematical distribution of 
public offices with only secondary attention to the merits of candi- 
dates, because there was at that time very bitter opposition to the 
merit system, and "good administration" was therefore interpreted 
by the commission as any procedure which might be necessary to 
insure its continuance and thus avoid a return to the spoils system. 
The mathematical distribution of offices may also have been justffied 
in a measure because at the time the law was passed the educational 
facilities in certain of the States had not developed to a point to 
enable worthy persons to prepare themselves to compete with the 
citizens of other States, and it was argued that since the residents of 
all States were taxed alike they should be given reasonable oppor- 
tunity to secure positions in the Government service if they cared to 
have them. 

Whatever justffication there may have been for such reasoning on 
the part of the Civil Service Commission in its early days, it is mani- 
fest that conditions do not justify it now. In the first place the 
merit system has been so thoroughly well established not only in the 
Federal service, but also throughout the States and municipalities of 
the various States, that the opponents of the system have come to 
be a small minority. Again, the educational advantages throughout 
the country have so improved that little justffication can be found for 
an enforced distribution of appointments, for among the population 
of every State can be found a large number of persons qualffied to 
compete for appomtment on even terms with the residents of every 
other State if they care to do so. Again, in the earlier years of the 
commission much lower salaries prevailed throughout the country 
than are paid at this time, whUe the salaries offered in the Govern- 
ment service were the same or a little higher than those paid now. 
The Government was then in a more favorable position to compete 
with the commercial enterprises of the country, and therefore less 
difficulty was experienced in securing satisfactory registers of eligi- 
bles. In the early days of the commission those States that were 
generally m arrears in their quotas had fewer residents who possessed 
the necessary qualffications to fOl positions in the service, but because 
of the more attractive salaries paid by the Government, as com- 
pared with commercial institutions, the Government positions were 
much more to be desired. Again, the standard of efficiency in the 
Government service has steadily advanced as elsewhere, so that 
better work is demanded of employees for a given salary than was 
formerly required. 

To sum it up, the Government positions are less attractive to the 
public generally than formerly because salaries throughout the coun- 
try have advanced while the salaries paid by the Government have 
practically remained stationary. 

It should be understood that, in criticizing the present method of 
apportioning appointments to public offices, no attack is made upon 
the provisions of the law requiring, subject to the demands of good 
administration, a distribution of appointments among the several 
States and Territories. This provision is not to be regarded as a 
sop to spoilsmen. It is instead, if properly administered, a wise 
provision to safeguard the interests of all the people in the General 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 49 

Government. It is scarcely debatable that, in a republican form of 
government, the activities of the Government should be conducted 
by individuals from all sections of the country, rather than from any 
one section, and that the selection of employees from any particular 
section of the country would be inimical to the mterests of the public. 
The framers of the civil-service law recognized this fact, and wisely 
provided for a distribution among the several States and Territories 
m proportion to population. Manifestly the framers of the law did 
not contemplate, however, that this distribution should be the prime 
consideration, but only "as nearly as good admmistration shall 
warrant" — ^that is, as between applicants of equal merit. It is evi- 
dent also that they did not desire an exact mathematical distribution 
of appointments, for such distribution is wholly inconsistent with 
the interests of "good admmistration," since in only one chance in 
fifty would the State having the first claim for an appointment at a 
particular moment also furnish the best qualified' eligible, except 
when two or more States furnished eligibles of equal merit. The 
fact that congressional representation is mathematically distributed 
is no ground for believmg that Congress contemplated a similar dis- 
tribution of appomtments within the departments. Such an appor- 
tionment of congressional representation is necessary, for the reason 
that all matters of legislation are decided by the votes of the repre- 
sentatives of the several States. The employees in the departments 
are never required to exercise any such important functions or to 
decide as a body, by vote or otherwise, any matter affecting the 
people at large. Their tasks are prescribed by their superior officers 
under laws passed by Congress and are at most admmistrative in 
character or in the nature of scientific mvestigations. 

No justification exists at the present time for forcing a mathe- 
matical distribution of appomtments according to population. It 
would seem that the intent and spirit of the law should now be carried 
out by the selection of the most competent eligibles available. There 
is no reason now to fear that any State would suffer a disadvantage 
if only the best qualified eligibles were selected. Furthermore, the 
registers of the Civil Service Commission for any general examination 
show that if the best qualified eligibles are selected without regard 
to the residence of the eligibles a fair distribution of appointments 
would result. Finally, the experience of the Civil Service Commission 
tinder the minute of May 14, 1910, confirms this belief. In its last 
annual report it says: 

No noticeable alteration has taken place in the relative position of the States with 
reference to the apportionment by reason of the change in method of certification 
outlined above (minute of May 14, 1910), and it has undoubtedly resulted in the 
certification of a higher class of eligibles, it not infrequently occurring that the highest 
three names on an entire register go to a department on the first certification. (Twenty- 
eighth Annual Report, Civil Service Commission, 1911, p. 17.) 

In the opinion of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency one 
of the difficulties in the way of a fair apportionment among the States, 
etc., of the appointments at Washington is the expense which must be 
incurred by appointees from States at a distance from the seat of 
government. This difficulty may, however, be removed if Congress 
will adopt the practice, which is followed in the case of enlisted men 
in the Army and Navy, of paying the expense of transportation to 
Washington of all persons who are appointed from outside of the 

S. Doc. 50, 63-1 4 



60 



APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



District of Coltimbia. A mileage rate might well be established for 
this purpose. A precedent for this can be found in the practice of 
transporting men who enlist in the Army or Navy. 

The followmg table, based on the number of appointments made to 
the departmental service during the year 1911, shows the approximate 
cost of mileage at different rates for bringing appomtees to Washing- 
ton. The amounts shown opposite the various rates per mile were 
obtained by giving to each State the proportion of 991 appointments 
which the State's population bears to the whole population of the 
United States, and multiplying the number of appointments thus 
given to each State by the mileage from the center of the State to 
Washington over the shortest usually traveled route and summing 
the amounts so obtained. The per capita cost was obtamed by divid- 
ing the total cost for the year by the number of appointments given 
to each State. 

Table 29. — Approximate cost of transpoi'ting appomtees to the classified service from 
their places of residence to Washington, D. C; number of apjjointments 991, distributed 
among the States and Territories in proportion to population as shown by the 
Thirteenth Census. 



Amount 
allowed 
(in cents) 
per mile. 


Total cost 
of trans- 
porting 991 
appointees. 


Cost per 
capita. 


1 
2 
3 
4 

5 


S8, 691 
17,383 
26,074 
34, 766 
43,457 


$8.77 
17.54 
26.31 
35.08 
43.85 



The expenditure of even $43,457 a year is justified on two grounds: 
(1) It would place the eligibles of all States on an equality, and (2) 
it would increase the attractiveness of the service to the residents 
of distant States and thus aid in securing a more equitable distribution 
of appointments on merit. 

VII. CONCLUSIONS. 

From the foregoing, two facts are established: 

(1) That the present method of apportioning appointments to 
public offices does not result in the certification of the eligibles who 
pass highest m the civil-service examinations ; and 

(2) That the marks obtained by an eligible in a civil-service exami- 
nation are a fair index of his probable future efficiency as a Govern- 
ment employee. 

The conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that the present 
method of apportioning appointments to public, offices is to a con- 
siderable degree an mterference with the merit system. The Gov- 
ernment is not getting the full benefit of the elaborate and really 
effective competitive-examination system which has been built up 
by the Civil Service Commission. The element of competition has 
been minimized in over two-thirds of the appomtments made m the 
apportioned service at Washington with the result that people are 
appomtcd daily to office hi the executive departments who are less 
capable of fillmg those offices than others equally desirous of obtain- 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 51 

iii^ them who have also qualified for them. The United States is 
being deprived of its due — the best talent available for its work. 

While there has been and still is more or less dissatisfaction ex- 
pressed by the heads of departments and bureaus in regard to the 
certifications of the Civil Service Commission, there are several 
reasons why complaints have been less numerous than they other- 
wise would have been: (1) The Civil Service Commission has in the 
interest of "good administration '^ where it is thought desirable, 
established a "nonapportioned service"; (2) it has departed somewhat, 
under the mmute of May 14, 1910, from a strict mathematical appor- 
tionment m making certain classes of appointments, so that the 
qualifications of eligibles certified under the minute are generally 
satisfactory, even when the eligibles are not the best available; (3) 
the rigid enforcement of the rule of apportionment by the Civil 
Service Commission, where it has applied the rule, has created the 
impression throughout the service that the commission is powerless 
in the matter and has to certify eligibles in a certain order regardless 
of whether the best-c[ualified eligibles are thus made available or not. 
The general impression throughout the departments is that it is use- 
less to complain because the Civil Service Commission is powerless 
to change matters and is compelled by law to certify as it does. That 
the impression is not correct is evidenced by the fact that it has felt 
obliged, under the '^ good-administration '^ clause of the law, to adopt 
paragraph 2 of Rule VII creating the nonapportioned service and to 
adopt the minute of May 14, 1910, in regard to appointments in the 
apportioned service. The commission thus not only has the power 
but also is under the law bound to extend the provisions of that 
minute to the whole of the apportioned service; for it is authorized 
by the law to apportion appointments to the service at Washington 
among the States, etc., only "as nearly as the conditions of good 
administration will warrant." To assume that it is more important 
to secure an apportionment of the appomtments to the departmental 
service at Washington than to secure good administration is to assume 
that the policy of the law is different from what the law says that it is. 
To act upon such an assumption and to sacrifice good administration 
in the interest of an exact apportionment is a violation certainly of 
the spirit of the law of which administrative authorities ought not 
to be guilty. 

• Frederick A. Cleveland, 
Walter W. Warwick, 
Merritt O. Chance, 

Commissioners. 



Appendix A. 



Department op State, 

October 18, 1911. 
■ The Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C. 
Gentlemen: I retiu-n to you lierewitli the examination papers which accompanied 
your certificates numbered 274, 275, and 276, without having made selections there- 
from, and request that you certify to this department the names of those male 
eligibles upon the stenographer and typewriter register having the highest averages, 
without regard to the apportionment. 

I think It hardly necessary to make specific objections, individually, to each of 
those certified — on the score of low averages in those subjects a proficiency in which 



52 APPOKTIONMEN'T OF APPOINTMEISTTS. 

is important, or on the score, in one case, of the loss of an arm — but believe that you 
will agree with me that a mere recital of the average percentages of these eligibles, 
74, 71, 72, 75, and 70, clearly shows a lack of qualification for appointment under 
this department. The peculiar nature of the principal duties of the Department of 
State makes necessary a particularly intelligent clerical force capable of rapid, well 
appearing, and correct work and of future development. Since the examination 
papers must be the only criterion of an eligible's efficiency, the persons whose names 
appear on the papers returned herewith are not deemed properly qualified for 
appointment to this department. 

This request that you make certification without regard to the apportionment is 
made only after the most careful consideration. In view, however, of the needs of 
this department, I feel it my duty, in the promotion of the greatest efficiency of that 
part of the public service which is under my direction, to make this request. 

Since the department is in immediate need of the services of these three additional 
persons, yoiu most prompt action in this matter is requested. I am, sh, 
Your obedient servant, 

P. C. Knox. 



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR. 

Memorandum in re law of apportionmeiit. 

In a letter dated February 23, 1910, to Hon. Albert B. Cummins, chairman Com 
mittee on Civil Service and Retrenchment, United States Senate, the department 
stated as follows: 

* * * "There are many restrictions imposed upon the department, either by 
law, rule, or regulation, as interpreted by the Civil Service Commission, which do 
not make for efficiency or economy in administration. As an example, the law relating 
to apportionment may be cited. Section 2 of the civil-service act of January 16, 1883, 
provides that: 

' ' ' Appointments to the public service aforesaid in the departments at Washington 
shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District of 
Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last preceding census.' 

"In my opinion it may well be doubted whether the benefits of this law outweigh 
its manifest disadvantages. While the change to an apportionment among the States 
and Territories is undoubtedly an improvement upon the system which had pre- 
vailed, the present method provides that each State or Territory shall have an inherent 
right to a certain number of appointments to civil office. Admitting that the civil- 
service tests are not perfect, they undoubtedly furnish the ])est guaranty for appoint- 
ment upon merit, and the demand for geographical distribution necessarily restricts 
the freedom of choice. I fully appreciate that for many reasons it is desirable to 
have the employees of the civil branch of the Government represent the various 
States and sections of the country, but I doubt whether such a policy, however 
desirable, is of sufficient importance to outweigh the tests which the law now provides 
to determine the merit and qualifications of applicants for the service. 

"In a number of instances this department has been inconvenienced because the 
Civil Service Commission has not felt at liberty to authorize transfers from the non- 
apportioned to the apportioned service on the gi'ound that the persons whose transfers 
were requested were residents of States or Territories which had received an exces- 
sive share of appointments under the law relating to apportionment. In some in- 
stances the persons were selected and their transfers proposed on account of their 
special qualifications for the work of the positions to which it was proposed to assign 
them, and in no instance has a transfer been requested that was not clearly in the 
interests of good administration. While under Rule X, section 8, clause (c), the 
Civil Service Commission apparently has authority to waive the restrictions relating 
to apportionment, there have been a number of cases in which it has felt constrained 
to deny such transfers, and the operation of the law as construed, so far as this de- 
partment is concerned, has not secured the best interests of the service. * * *. " ' 

Other officers of the Department of Commerce and Labor have expressed their views 
with respect to the law of apportionment as follows: 

The chief clerk of the department: 

"The civil-service rules now governing entrance into the ser\ice are in the main 
excellent, but there are certain requirements that should be changed. For one thing, 
I am opposed to the present method of apportionment, unless it can be shown from the 
experience of the Civil Service Commission that the existence of section 2 of Rule VII, 
with its numerous exceptions, is a real advantage. If the GoA'crnraent service is to be 
maintained on that high plane of efficiency which is so generally demanded, it seems 



APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 53 

only fair to urge that the departments be granted the privilege of selecting clerks who 
have attained the highest marks on examination and not be compelled to consider appli- 
cants with poor markings who must be preferred simply because they claim legal resi- 
dence in States the quotas of which are not exhausted, although they may not have 
resided in such States for many years." 

The Commissioner of Corporations: 

"The application of the 'State quota' principle frequently results in the certifica- 
tion of men from remote points, where business and other conditions are such that their' 
quahfications are not, as a rule, as satisfactory for the special work of this bureau as- are 
the qualifications of the average man from the States whose quota is more apt to be full. 

"In this connection also, speaking purely from the standpoint of an efficient Govern- 
ment service (which I take it is the thing desired and is the true object of the civil- 
service system), the application of any principle which tends to recognize a certain 
property right inherent in each citizen to a chance at public office is extremely un- 
fortunate." 

The Director of the Census: 

"The apportionment of the civil service is not in the interest of good administration. 
This seems to be generally conceded by those familiar with the results of its operation."^ 

The Director, Bureau of Standards: 

"To secure the ablest assistants is the need and aim of every department and bureau 
in the service. Yet at the outset they are somewhat handicapped by the apportion- 
ment plan. It is hardly in the interest of efficiency that a clerk eligible rated at 70 be 
appointed in preference to one rated at 85 merely because of geographical location. 
Yet this is the practice under the law. If a register is exhausted within a year, the 
labor involved in the apportionment is practically wasted, for it does not affect the 
status of the personnel. If, on the other hand, the register is not wholly used up during 
the year, then the principle of apportionment operates to prevent the selection of the 
best men on merit alone. In either case it is a barrier to effective selection. Clerks 
in some States having excellent business colleges hesitate to take the civil-service 
examinations because of the slight chance of appointment under a plan which places 
location above merit. If certifications were made in the order of standing, recommen- 
dations could be made on merit and fitness alone. It is believed that the modifica- 
tion of Ithe law in this respect would be only of advantage to the service." 

In his annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1910, the Secretary of the de- 
partment makes the following comment upon the law of apportionment: 

"It is generally conceded that although far from being perfect the present civil- 
service method of securing employees possessing proper qualifications for the per- 
formance of the work required by the Government is the best system that has yet been de- 
vised for the purpose, but there are many restrictions i mposed by law, rule, or regulation 
which do not make for efficiency and economy in administration. The provision of 
law requiring that appointments in the departments at Washington shall be apportioned 
among the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia upon the basis 
of population may well be cited as an illustration. It is very doubtful whether the 
benefits of this particlar provision of law outweigh its manifest disadvantasres. While 
the civil-service tests undoubtedly furnish the best guaranty for appointment upon 
merit, the demand for geographical distribution necessarily restricts the freedom of 
choice. For some reasons it may be desirable to have the employees of the civil branch 
of the Government represent the various States and sections of the country, but it is a 
question whether such a poKcy is of sufficient importance to outweigh the tests which 
the law provides to determine the merits and qualifications of applicants. If the serv- 
ice is to be maintained on that high plane of efficiency which is so urgently demanded, 
it seems only fair to grant to the departments the privilege of selecting the persons 
who have attained the highest marks on examination, and not be compelled to consider 
ehgibles with poor markings simply because they claim legal residence in States whose 
quotas are not in excess." 

EXCERPT FROM REPORT BY THE BUREAxf OF PLANT INDUSTRY TO THE COMMITTEE ON 
DEPARTMENT METHODS APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT JUNE 2, 1908. 

Personnel. 

******* 
15. Difficulty has been experienced at times by the Bureau of Plant Industry in 
securing scientific, clerical, and other assistants, in two particulars. 

******* 

(2) Sufficient attention is not paid by the Civil Service Commission to the state- 
ment of requirements set forth in the request for a list of eligibles. 



54 . APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

(3) The third difficulty results from the impossibility of knowing in advance the 
eligibles to be certified or of securing particular persons who are known to be compe- 
tent and otherwise desirable. Furthermore, the practice of certifying eligibles geo- 
graphically makes it impossible to select the highest on the list; that is, the eligible 
who stands highest on the list of a particular State may be inferior to others on the 
lists of States from which no certification can be obtained at that particular time. In 
other words, certification is not based on excellence, but on geographical distribution, 
which makes it impossible to secure the best men on the registers. 

16. The civil-service registers usually supply persons having requisite qualifications 
except in cases of mechanics. For illustration, we recently requested certification 
from which to appoint a gardener, and names of eligibles were sent to us who were not 
at all fitted for our work. Men eminently qualified for the work of the department 
passed the examinations at much higher ratings than those who were certified, but on 
account of the law of apportionment were not certified. We have had similar expe- 
rience with carpenters, painters, plumbers, etc. It can readily be seen that the law 
of apportionment prevents the department from getting the best available material. 
The best mechanics of distant States do not seem to take civil-service examinations. 



Correspondence and files. 
******* 

20. Stenographers are used in the preparation of all correspondence when they are 
available. The force of stenographers often proves inadequate to handle the work and 
it is sometimes necessary to prepare letters with a pen, carbon and press copies being 
retained as in case of typewritten letters. 



EXCERPT PROM THE REPORT ON PERSONNEL OF THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF PLANT 
INDUSTRY TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OP AGRICUL- 
TURE TO EXAMINE INTO THE EFFICIENCY OF THE VARIOUS BUREAUS AND OFFICES OF 
THAT DEPARTMENT. 

10. The law of apportionment prevents the bureau from getting the best possible 
eligibles obtainable. We think the present method of certification is wrong; in other 
words, we think that certification should be based upon excellency and not upon 
geographical distribution. It is believed that a much higher grade of clerical help 
would be secured in this way. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Plant Industry, 

Decembei- 18, 1908. 
Hon. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 
Sir: I return herewith civil-service certificate No. 5912 for a clerk- typewriter and 
respectfully recommend that no appointment be made therefrom, as the eligibles 
certified on this certificate do not appear to have the qualifications required in the 
position for which certification was requested. The highest eligible on the certifi- 
cate states in his examination papers that he is troubled with catarrh in the head 
and has practically no use of his right ear, which would be very undesirable in the 
position under consideration. In fact, none of the eligibles certified on the certifi- 
cate have the neatness, speed, and accuracy desired in this position, and I have 
decided, therefore, to try the female eligible list for stenographer and typewriter. 
Certification from the female register has been requested in another communication 
of even date. 

Very respectfully, • , 

Chief of Bureaut 



APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 55 

Department op Agriculture, 

Bureau op Plant Industry, 

June 8, 1911. 
Hon. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 
Sir: I return herewith civil-service certificate No. 7772 for a male clerk, stenog- 
rapher, and typewriter, at a salary at the rate of $800 per annum, and respectfully 
recommend that no appointment be made therefrom. One of the eligibles certified 

on this certificate, Mr. • — , has but one arm, his left arm being off below the elbow, 

which fact would make his appointment undesirable. Mr. ■ — ■ , the second-named 

eligible, is 50 years of age — rather older than we would care to appoint a minor clerk. 
In fact, the papers of all the eligibles accompanying this certificate have been exam- 
ined, and none of them come up to the standard required in this bureati. Under the 
circumstances it has been decided to return this certificate without selection and 
request certification from the female register in the hope of getting higher class 
eligibles. 

Very respectfully, , 

Acting Chief of Bureau. 



Department op Agriculture, 

Bureau op Soils, 
Washington, D. C, December 18, 1911. 
Prof. Frank J. Goodnow, 

The President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency, 

The Winder Building, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Sir: You asked me in a conversation a few days ago to prepare a state- 
ment of some specific cases in which the enforcement of the apportionment rule of the 
Civil Service Commission had militated against the securing of the most competent 
assistants for the Government service. 

The case of a soil bibliographer. — On October 24, 1910, Mr. A, coming to us from the 
Congressional Library through presidential order, was transferred from the Bureau of 
Soils to the Bureau of Plant Industry to fill a vacancy in that bureau carrying a higher 
salary than paid in the Bureau of Soils for which it was believed Mr. A had exceptional 
qualifications. There being no list of eligibles from which to select a successor and the 
position being unique in that there were no men known to this office as having been 
trained along these particular lines, the bureau, after careful inquiiy and correspond- 
ence and personal interviews, decided that Mr. B, of the Library of Congress, was the 
man best qualified by experience, habits, and training, and requested the President 
through the Honorable Secretary of Agriculture to have the place filled by Mr. B. 
through a Presidential order. (See copy of my letter of Mar. 7, 1911.) In the mean- 
time between the resignation of Mr. A and the preparation of my letter of May 11, 
Congress had passed the appropriation bill with an emergency fund put in on the floor 
of the House for the exploration of this country with reference to the possibilities of 
obtaining the sources of supply of potash and other fertilizer materials, with the under- 
standing on the part of the Committee on Agriculture that a preliminary report should 
be made on the assembling of Congress in December. This left a period of about eight 
months in which to gather the data for such a report and the need was imperative that 
a suitable person be at once assigned to the bibliography of the subject to give our 
field men at the earliest possible time all references to possible localities where their 
search could be most profitably conducted. This matter was referred by the President 
to the Civil Service Commission and they acted adversely. (See copy of their letter 
of Mar. 23 — Appendix B.) Their suggestion that Mr. A be returned to the Bureau of 
Soils was taken up and found to be impracticable. Under the last clause of their letter 
giving permission for the temporary employment of a man, they suggested a man from 
Brentano's, but after looking into the situation and finding that it was a temporary job 
and that Brentano was not willing to loan him to us, he declined. The commission 
then advised us to take the matter up with the Librarian of Congress and see if he would 
be willing to loan us Mr. B for a period of three months, but this he declined to do. 
We then found Mr. C, who had been working for the Geological Survey for per diem 
compensation. Mr. C is a man well advanced in years and while a very good man for 
routine work of this kind he was not the man that we would have selected; however, 
in view of the pressing need of the work, he was taken on the force. The commission 
has had three examinations without a single applicant in any case, as I understand it. 
Mr. B was asked to take one of the examinations, but on being told by the commission 
that he would stand no chance of certification, residing as he does in the District of 
Columbia where the apportionment is full, in the event that anyone else from any of 



56 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

the States where the apportionment was not full should pass the examination, he 
declined to enter the contest and confirmed that when the subsequent examinations 
were held. The bureau has, therefore, been unable to do better than to keep Mr. C, 
although we recognize that he is not the best man for the position. 

The case of a confidential stenographer to the chief of the bureau.- — In order to fill a 
vacancy in the position of confidential stenographer to the chief of the bureau, caused 
by the transfer of Mr. D to the Division of Accounts, the Civil Service Commission 
was asked on November 23, 1910, for permission to transfer Mr. E from the Army War 
College at a salary of $1,000 per annum. The officials of the Army War College sig- 
nified their assent, Mr. E was anxious to take the position, and a careful investigation 
of the matter indicated that he would prove a highly desirable man for the place — 
one of consideral)le importance in the bureau — but the request was declined by the- 
Civil Service Commission on the grounds of Mr. E while in the civil service, being a 
resident of the District of Columbia, and therefore not eligible under the rules of the 
commission for transfer to a classified position in another department in spite of the 
fact that he had served considerably more than three years in the War. Department. 
(See copy of my letter to the Secretary of Agriculture under date of November 18, 
1910, and of the commission's letter of November 23, 1910.) 

The case of a topographical draftsman. — In August, 1909, it was found necessary on 
account of the increase of work in our drafting department, to secure the services of 
an additional draftsman, and, the lists of the eligibles in the possession of the Civil 
Service Commission having been examined and found to contain no names with the 
necessary qualifications, Mr. F recommended by the Geological Survey, where he 
had been trained, was selected, and under authority of the conmiission was given a 
temporary appointment of six months at a salary of $1,200 per annum. At the end 
of six months' service, the permanent appointment of Mr. F was desired on account 
of his ability, his extensive experience in similar lines of Avork in the Geological 
Survey, and the further fact that during his ]3eriod of service with this bureau he 
had obtained quite an intimate knowledge of our requirements and had shown himself 
to be especially adapted to this line of M'ork. Furthermore, his experience as a 
field traverseman was such as rendered him particularly valuable in the work at 
headquarters. 

It was desirable to secure Mr. F as a permanent employee, but this was found 
impossible, due to the fact that Mr. F's name had been erased from the civil-service 
register, owing to the length of time that had elapsed since his examination, and the 
further fact that while a resident of the State of Maine it would have been necessary 
for him to have returned to that State and remained one year in order to have taken 
an examination there and been accredited to that State. It would, of course, have 
been possible for him to have taken an examination in the District of Columbia. 
This would, however, have necessitated his recognizing the District as his permanent 
residence in Avhich event it was practically certain that the commission would not 
have certified his name on account of their apportionment regiilations. 

In case of another topographic draftsman.— AX the same time, in August, 1909, Mr. G 
likewise recommended by the Geological Survey, where he had been trained, was, 
through the authority of 'the Civil Service Commission, given a temporary appoint- 
ment as a topographic draftsman at $1,200 per annum for a period of six months. 
This period was extended from time to time until, in December, 1910, the commission 
established a list of eligibles covering positions of this character, and it was then 
found necessary to make a selection from the register. I can say very conservatively 
that Mr. G has turned out to be oaie of the best, if not the best, topographic draftsmen 
that we have ever had in the bureau, and is to-day doing the very highest grade of 
work which we have and in a manner which is thorouglily satisfactory. 

When the certification was received Mr. G's name was fourth on the list, although 
oiitranking by far all other applicants in the matter of grade coming from States having 
a low apportionment. It was a matter of necessity at that time with the crowded 
condition of the drafting work that his services should be retained rather than to 
take on an inexperienced man. In order to do this, howeyer, it was necessary for the 
bureau to make two appointments from this list; that is, we were compelled to appoint 
one of the first three names before Mr. G's name could be reached, and, after a delib- 
erate study of the necessities of the case, this was done. This man whom we were 
compelled to appoint ahead of Mr. G is a draftsman of ordinary ability, who can only 
do the more ordinary routine work, and his work has to be constantly and carefully 
su])ervised. 

The fact of Mr. G's name having been placed fourth on the list, even though he had 
a higher percentage than any of the other names thereon, was due to his haying taken 
the examination in the District and being accredited thereto. Mr. G's residence up 
to that time had been in the State of New York, but he had been away from there for 
some time and to have taken an examination in the State of New York it would have 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 57 

been necessary for him to have returned to that State and Hved there for a year, and 
even then it is questionable, under the apportionment regulations, whether a residence 
in New York would have been of much more service to him than one in the District 
of Columbia. 

Mr. G's experience with Government map construction has been large and varied. 
"While not a regularly classified employee, he had worked from time to time with the 
Geological Survey, with the Army Engineers, and in some of the other map-making 
bureaus of the Government, which had given him an exceptional training in this line 
of work. 

The case of a clerk-stenographer. — In August, 1911, Mr. H, one of our best stenographers, 
at 11,200 per annum, resigned on account of illness. There was a possibility of his 
being able to return later and a temporary appointment was given to Mr. I on certifica- 
tion from the Civil Service Commission to fill the vacancy pending the return of Mr. H. 
It has just been learned that Mr. H will not return, and it is necessary to make a per- 
manent appointment on our statutory roll of a clerk-stenographer at $1,200. Mr. I 
has proved himself to be a very capable and painstaking man. He has obtained a 
great deal of information regarding the nature of our work audit would be very desirable 
to retain his services. Unfortunately Mr. I claims a residence in the District of 
Columbia and it is useless for us to attempt to secure him permanently. It will be 
necessary for us to go to the commission and ask for a certification and take our chances 
on securing some one from a distant point whom we have not seen and who will have 
to go through the course of training and experience that has been given to Mr. I because 
Mr. I is a resident of the District. 

Very truly, yours, Milton Whitney, 

Chief of Bureau^ 

Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Chemistry, 
Washington, D. C, December 27, 1911, 
Mr. F. A. Cleveland, 

The President's Economy Commission, the White House, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: As requested by you, I am making a statement in writing of some of the- 
inconveniences of the present civil-service system. 

The bureau is having considerable difficulty with appointments for two classes of 
employees — assistant chemists and laboratory helpers. It is believed that these 
difficulties would be remedied, in part, by removing the classes in question from the 
apportioned list. It sometimes happens that there is on the eligible list the name of 
a man who would be valuable to the Bureau of Chemistry in Washington, but who is 
not particularly adapted to the work in some of our branch laboratories and who is not 
interested in the class of work done there. Perhaps the Civil Service Commission 
would waive its regulations and permit the appointment of such a man to Washington 
if the necessity were pointed out. This fact does not remedy the matter, however, as 
we do not usually know when such a man is on the list. If we do know it it is only 
by accident. 

Again, appointments can not be made for two or three months after the date of the 
examination. On this account many of the men who take the examinations secure 
other appointments in the meantime and by the time positions are tendered them as a 
result of their civil-service examination they are not available for appointment. 
Naturally enough the best men, the ones we want most, are usually those who are first 
appointed. Any delay, therefore, in the certification of the best names on the list 
decreases the probability of their accepting appointments tendered them. For this 
reason it is of the utmost importance that the best names on the list be certified first 
in order that there may be the least possible delay in offering them positions. We are 
not in position to cite illustrations that adequately present this case, for, as aheady 
stated, it is only by accident if we happen to know the qualifications of men on the 
list in advance of their certification. Moreover, it frequently happens that appointees 
have peculiar qualifications which we only learn after their appointments. 

The following cases will serve to illustrate the difficulties referred to: 

Dr. J passed the civil-service examination for assistant chemist in the spring of 1910, 
I believe. We happened to learn from a member of the faculty of Johns Hopkins 
University that Dr. J was on the eligible list and also that he had particular and 
unusual qualifications in both organic and physical chemistry. For years we have 
not been able to get men enough of that type in the bureau at Washington and at that 
time we were particularly in need of them. Dr. J was not certified for appointment 
in Washington, however. He was certified to us for appointment in the food and 
drug inspection laboratory at Galveston, Tex., work for which he was not particularly 
well suited and in which he was not interested (civil-service certificate No. 7329, 



58 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOHSTTMElSrTS. 

Oct. 8, 1910). Finally, a position arose in one of the branch laboratories to which he 
was well adapted and he was appointed to the food research laboratory in Philadelphia 
from civil-service certificate No. 7576, March 7, 1911. It happened that in this case 
Dr. J was not lost to the bureau because he had a position as research assistant in 
Johns Hopkins University. If he had been looking for a position at the time he took 
the examination, as is usually true, it is ob\'ious that he would have been lost to us 
before the position arose to which he could have been appointed under the ordinary 
rules. 

Another case is that of Dr. K. Dr. K was a man of good training and of experience 
far superior to that of the average eligible for the position of assistant chemist. It 
was believed that he would make a valuable man for the bureau; at the same time 
the appointing officers of the bureau were doubtful about his ability to serve success- 
fully as a witness in court cases. On this account, and also because of the fact that 
his experience did not include the examination of foods, it was deemed inadvisable 
to appoint him to any of our food inspection laboratories. At the time we might 
have used him advantageously in Washington, but he was certified on civil-service 
certificate Nos. 7787, 7870, 7920, and 8138, for various locations in the field service 
in our food inspection laboratories. Meantime it was desired to appoint a man of 
mature years and experience at special work in the Bureau of Chemistry in Washington 
in order that he might familiarize himself with our work here preparatory to taking 
up work in the field. To fill this position a request was made for certification to the 
bureau in Washington, but those certified did not appear suitable for the work. By 
accident we knew something of the work of Dr. K and believed that he would fill 
our requirements. We therefore requested his appointment in Washington with the 
provision that after receiving preliminary training he should be detailed to field 
service. This appointment was authorized by the Civil Service Commission. As in 
the case of Dr. J, therefore, we did not entirely lose the services of Dr. K. Here 
again it appears to have been because he already had a position which he could hold 
as long as he desired . 

Another illustration showing the necessity for prompt action is the case of Dr. L. 
Dr. L was recommended by members of the chemical faculty in Cornell, as the ablest 
man in his line they had turned out for years. Because of their statement regarding 
him we were anxious to secure his appointment. Because of his unusual ability he 
received repeated offers of positions, but was desirous of entering the Government 
service and for a time declined them. It happened that he was from a State which 
permitted his early certification and his name was received on the first certificate and 
an appointment promptly tendered him. Notwithstanding this fact, he had begun 
to feel that he could not longer run the risk of declining positions that were being 
tendered him and had written a letter accepting another position when he received 
notification of his appointment to the bureau in time to permit him to telegraph 
recalling the letter just mentioned. If Dr. L, therefore, had been certified from 
Maryland or the District of Columbia his name would not have appeared on the first 
certificate and the bureau would not have been able to secure his services. 

These cases are probably sufficient to illustrate our difficulties with the position of 
assistant chemist. With the poorest men on the eligible lists we probably do not 
have much difficulty. They do not have so many tenders of other positions. 

The effect of placing the scientific positions in the apportioned service is therefore 
to lower the standard of the men we are able to employ. 

The same objections apply to placing laboratory helpers in the apportioned service. 
The position of laboratory helper is not of a scientific nature. The helpers are intended 
to be a high class of laborers. They need have no knowledge of chemistry, but should 
be familiar with chemical apparatus and should have a sufficiently delicate touch 
to be able to handle delicate apparatus in cleaning it or putting it together. 

Under civil service certificate No. 4763, August 29, 1907, Mr. M was certified for 
appointment as laboratory helper in the Bureau of Chemistry at Washington. At 
that time it was the custom of the bureau to obtain certifications to Washington and 
appoint men and detail them to the positions which seemed most advisable. Mr. M 
was a Washington boy and was instructed to report for dutya month or so after his 
appointment. In the meantime an emergency arose in Washington and M's appoint- 
ment was changed in such a manner as to permit him to go to work at once in the 
Bureau of Chemistry in Washington, and subsequently he was transferred to Chicago. 
It was after that time, I think, that the laboratory helpers were placed in the appor- 
tioned service; at any rate we did not then know they were in the apportioned service. 
Mr. N, of Chicago, was certified for appointment as laboratory helper under civil 
service certificate No. 6491, October 1, 1909. Vacancies had at that time occurred 
in Washington, and it was thought best to grant M's request for a transfer to Washing- 
ton, the transportation to be paid by himself, and fill his place in Chicago by the 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS, 59 

appointment of N, a Chicago boy. This recommendation was made but was not 
approved by the Civil Service Commission because of the fact that M was in the non- 
apportioned service and was not eligible to Washington. This decision was made 
notwithstanding the fact that M was originally certified for Washington and appointed 
in Washington but transferred subsequently to Chicago. A short time after this M 
resigned and secured another position in Washington. He was a good helper, and the 
bureau thus lost his services by reason of the position being in the apportioned service. 

Several years ago Mr. O was appointed laboratory helper in the Boston laboratory. 
Mr. was a college graduate and had had almost enough scientific training to permit 
him to pass an examination as either chemist or bacteriologist. His training was not 
quite sufficient, however. He was an energetic, reliable man, and at his request was 
transferred as laboratory helper to Washington, where he had opportunity to take an 
advanced course in an institution having work at night. A number of months after 
this the Civil Service Commission notified us that Mr. O's transfer to Washington was 
illegal, but it so happened that in the interim had passed an examination for assist- 
ant bacteriologist and his name had been recommended for appointment to that 
position. 

We do not get the class of people we need as laboratory helpers. The position is 
not intended as a stepping stone for scientific workers. Several years ago we believed 
that we had found a solution to the difficulty and recommended that the grade of 
laboratory helper junior be established, appointments to be made from the messenger 
boy roll. These boys were expected to do some messenger work but to learn the 
duties of a helper and while so employed to acquire experience which would enable 
them, after a time and without subsequent examination, to be promoted to the posi- 
tion of laboratory helper. This grade was approved by the Civil Service Commission, 
but the placing of laboratory helpers within the apportioned service makes it imprac- 
ticable, because the messenger boys are in the nonapportioned service and, therefore, 
as we understand it, they are not eligible even to take an examination for the position 
of laboratory helper in the Bureau of Chemistry in Washington. It therefore appears 
that in this position, for which there should be so many applicants, it often takes us 
several months to fill a vacancy satisfactorily. 

If we could appoint boys in the manner indicated above it would facilitate the 
work of the bureau very much . Our messenger boys have no incentive to grow up 
in the service. Most of them live here and some of them, living at home, could study 
at night if there was a possibility of promotion. They can not accept a promotion 
and leave Washington without giving up all hopes of studying at night, for then it 
would require almost their entire salaries to support them. Some time ago, when we 
were having unusual difficulty in securing satisfactory helpers, Mr. P was a messenger 
boy in this bureau. He was a boy of unusual ability and fidelity and one who gave 
promise of developing into an able man. He was a graduate of the McKinley Tech- 
nical High School of this city and was on the eligible list for appointment as laboratory 
helper. He, however, could not be certified for appointment in Washington. We 
could not ask for his certification as laboratory helper by way of promotion because 
lie was in the nonapportioned service. Mr. P resigned and accepted, outside of the 
bureau, a position less desirable than that of laboratory helper in the Bureau of 
Chemistry and at the same time our vacancies in the positions of laboratory helper 
were filled, after considerable delay, by men whose qualifications were far inferior 
to his. 

The Bureau of Chemistry is not particularly inconvenienced by the fact that stenog- 
raphers and clerks are in the apportioned service. It is probable that the salaries 
we pay are necessarily higher than would be the case if local stenograi^hers could be 
employed but the work is not hampered thereby. The eligible list always contains a 
considerable number of able stenographers, so that there is no great delay in filling 
vacancies with properly qualified people. On the other hand, in positions of assistant 
chemist and laboratory helpers the number of eligibles is not sufficient to meet our 
needs, and it is believed that placing such positions in the apportioned service is an 
unnecessary obstruction and results in seriously hampering the service. 
Respectfully, 

H. W. Wiley, Chief. 



60 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau op Chemistry, 
Washington, D. C, January 25, 1912. 
Mr. F. A. Cleveland, 

The President' s Economy Commission, the White House, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: There is one matter which has occurred to me recently which probablj^ 
I did not cover, or only covered inadequately, in my letter of December 27, 1911. 

I am informed that at the present time the quota of the following States is full: 
Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Virginia, Mary- 
land, Vermont, and Delaware. I am also informed that the States of Pennsylvania 
and New York are very near the line and that their quota is likely to be full at any 
time. 

A person taking an examination, for instance, as assistant chemist, in any of the 
States mentioned, therefore, will not be certified for appointment until almost the 
end of the list is reached. Now, it happens that many of our best universities and 
colleges are located in the States mentioned. It is, of course, true at the present time 
that good training is given in a large number of States, but if a student from a State 
which is very poorly equipped with colleges happens to be taking a post-graduate 
course in one of the institutions in the States mentioned above, he can not take the 
examination for assistant chemist and be eligible for certification in Washington unless 
he returns to his home State for that purpose. 

Now, the Bureau of Chemistiy is continually placed in controversy with someof 
the best-paid experts the country produces, and we require for the benefit of the service 
the best material which the educational institutions of the country are graduating from 
year to year. If we must appoint first even relatively inferior men from States whose 
quota is not filled, it is evident that by the time we have reached the men from the 
States whose quota is filled, and many of whom are of superior training, the best of the 
latter class will have already obtained positions. In our leading institutions the best 
men in the class usually have positions awaiting them upon graduation. I consider 
that the condition mentioned above, which follows from placing the position of assist- 
ant chemist in the apportioned service, is prejudicial to the interests of the depart- 
ment, contrary to business principles, and subversive of the civil-service principle. 
Respectfully, 

H. W. Wiley, Chief.. 



Department of Agriculture, 

Division of Publications, 
Washington, D. C, December 26, 1911 
Mr. Brown, 

President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency. 
Dear Sir: In compliance with your request, I inclose herewith a statement show- 
ing the experience of this office in connection with the present system of certification 
of employees by the United States Civil Service Commission under the regulations- 
with regard to apportionment. 
Very respectfully, 

Jos. A. Arnold, Editor and Chief. 

STATEMENT. 

When persons living in Washington but credited to the several States were certified 
by the United States Civil Service Commission, we were always able to fill vacancies 
more promptly and to secure a better class of employees than at present. There 
are many persons who are residents of Washington and near-by States who have been 
found capable and efficient, but they are certified for temporary positions only. We 
have had quite a number of these temporary employees and have found most of them 
exceptionally well suited for the work, but we have not been able to keep them 
beyond the six months. Wlien a vacancy occurs, however, in the position of clerk 
or skilled laborer we are obliged to wait several days before receiving a certification, 
very often the persons certified living in California, Washington, Colorado, and in 
other far-distant States. For instance, a man in Honolulu was certified. _ Some of 
those certified are not suited for the work to be performed, judging by their papers, 
and it is necessary to write those who appear to be satisfactory and ask whether they 
would accept the place if offered them and when they can report for duty. Asthe 
entrance salary is only $720 per annum, and promotion slow, and inasmuch as it is 
likely to cost a month's salary to get to Washington, few are willing to accept the 
positions, and it is necessary to ask for another certification, write more letters, and 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 61 

wait for some one who may, perchance, be willing to accept. On this account the 
places often remain vacant for weeks, when we are in need of assistants to get out the 
congressional mail. 

Persons residing in Washington can better afford to accept low salaries, and at the 
same time we can see them and judge of their ability to perform the services required. 
A few specific instances may be cited as follows: 

Mr. Q, of Tennessee, residing in Washington, D. C, was appointed a temporary 
clerk at $720 per annum August 16; 1910. Mr. Q proved to be an excellent stock 
clerk, having had considerable experience in that line. We had had his time extended 
for three months and made every effort to have it made permanent, but could not do 
so. A young man in another bureau was appointed to the place, but he had to be 
instructed in the duties of the position. 

Mr. R, of the District of Columbia, was appointed a skilled laborer at $720 per 
annum March 17, 1911, and we were able to have his time extended for three months, 
"but were obliged to terminate his appointment September 16, 1911. Although he 
was an excellent employee we could not keep him. The Civil Service Commission 
certified three persons to fill the place, and of the three the only one who seemed 
likely to prove satisfactory resided in Honolulu, while the other two were in the 
far West. It was necessary, of course, to write to the one having the best papers 
and ask him if he would accept the place. He declined. In the meantime we found 
a young man in the department and secured his appointment, but he is not as capable 
a man as Mr. R. If we had not found the young man, we would have been obliged 
to ask for another certification of persons probably residing in far-off States, so that 
we would have had to wait 10 days to 2 weeks to ascertain whether they would 
take the position if offered to them. Meanwhile the position would have been vacant 
and the division deprived of the services of the employee. 



Department of the Interior, 
Office Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 

Washington, June 17, 1912. 

The President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency, 

Washington, D. C. 

Gentlemen: I inclose a memorandum prepared in this office on the workings of the 
apportionment rule. While perhaps my own personal reasoning is a little different 
in this matter from one or two of the points expressed in the memorandum, my conclu- 
sion is the same, and I particularly invite your attention to the modified plan suggested 
in case you still feel it necessary to keep a certain degree of apportionment. 

I assume that one of the reasons for the apportionment was that it was felt, in a 
long view ahead, through the decades, the gathering of people in as nearly as possible 
equal numbers from the different sections of the country would have a good reactive 
effect on those communities, and be an efficient part of the building up of our all- 
round democracy. While no one is more enthusiastic than myself about a long vie'w 
ahead in public "affairs, I think that possibly this particular good has been overrated 
as compared with the steady and definite evil of not being able to command the most 
efficient work available. On the whole, I should urge the complete abandonment 
of the apportionment system as regards the District. 
Sincerely, yours, 

R. C. Valentine, Commissioner. 



December 13, 1911. 
memorandum. 

The rule of apportionment of employees by States and Territories is a prominent 
feature in the civil-service law of January 16, 1883, reading as follows: 

Section 2, clause 2, paragraph: 

"Third. Appointments to the public service aforesaid in the departments at Wash- 
ington shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District 
of Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last preceding census. " 

In my opinion the law of apportionment brings to pass a condition of affairs which 
would not be permitted to exist by any reputable business house in the country. 
There should be no reason why the Government should not be permitted to enter 
the market the same as a business concern to secure the services of the best people, 
always bearing in mind, of course, that these people are to be eligible for appointment 
through civil-service examination. 



62 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMElSrTS. 

If we admit that the civil-service examination is such as to prove that a man is 
qualified or disqualified for a position we must reach the conclusion that this same 
examination should show that one person is better qualified to fill a certain position 
than another. The law of apportionment saj's to us: "You must select and appoint 
this man whose average is 71, but who happens to live in Florida, when at the same 
time you can not select and appoint a man whose average is 91, but who lives in Mary- 
land, the District of Columbia, Virginia, or some other State which has received 
its share of the appointments allowed it under the rule of apportionment. " 

The only excuse possible for the law as it now stands is that it distributes "pat- 
ronage." It is true that if the law were repealed and the appointments given to 
those standing highest on the registers, irrespective of their places of residence, a 
large majority of the appointments would go to those people who happen to reside in 
States near the seat of government. Considering this condition of affairs purely from 
the standpoint of the efficiency of the service, I can not see that this would in any 
way injure the service, and, on the other hand, it might be possible that the service 
would be benefited by reason of the fact that all those persons who live in those 
near-by States who enter the service would do so with a clear understanding of what 
the conditions would be, etc., which would probably render them more satisfied than 
would be a man who came from a more distant point with the idea that he was going 
to receive a stated sum of money for performing a minimum amount of work (this 
being the popular idea of the Government service) and afterwards found out that he 
would be expected to earn the coin. 

I have given this subject a great deal of thought at different times and have a 
plan in mmd that would obviate any objections that persons might raise to giving 
appointments to the highest qualified eligibles. My plan is about as follows: Divide 
the present register into three registers, register No. 1 containing the names of all 
those persons who receive an average of 90 and upward, register No. 2 containing 
the names of all those persons who receive an average of between 80 and 89-0-, and 
register No. 3 containing the names of all those persons who receive an average of 
between 70 and 79^^. When a request is received for eligibles, the Civil Service 
Commission should certify from register No. 1, but strictly under the apportionment 
rule, exhausting all of the names on that register from the States which had received 
their excess as well as those which had not before considering any persons on register 
No. 2. If such a plan as this could be suggested and adopted by the powers that be, 
a big step in the right direction would be taken, as under the present rule the only 
reason why an eligible from the State of Maryland or Virginia, or the District of 
Columbia, with an average of 95 or 96, receives any consideration at all in connection 
with an appointment is when the registers for the other States have become exhausted 
and all persons thereon receiving an average as low as 70 have been appointed. 

I can not see but that the law of apportionment works to the detriment of the Gov- 
ernment service in Washington, D. C. 

C. V. Stinchecum, 
Assistant Chief, Education Division. 



Appendix B. 



United States Civil Service Commission, 

Washington, D. C, January 28, 191S. 
The President's Commission on Economy and Efficiency. 

Gentlemen: With reference to your letters of December 22, 1912, transmitting^ 
proposed report to the President relating to certifications of eligibles to positions in 
the departments at Washington, and of January 25, 1913, the Civil Service Commis- 
sion submits herewith comment and a plan of action relating to appointments to 
positions in the apportioned service, Avhich it will thank you to embody in your 
report to the President, in accordance with your "suggestion. 

Of the following quotations from the civil-service act the portions in italic are 
material to the consideration of the matter of appointments in the apportioned service: 

"And, among other things, said rules shall provide and declare, as nearly as the 
conditions of good administration will tvarrant, as follows: 

******* 

"Second. That all the offices, places, and employments so arranged or to be 
arranged in classes shall be filled by selections according to grade froin among those 
graded highest as the results of such competitive examinations. 

"Third. Appointments to the public service aforesaid in the departments at 
Washington shall he apportioned among the several States and Territories and 



f 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 63 

the District of Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last pre- 
ceding census. * * *." 

It will be observed that the two pro\dsions of the statute, one providing for selections 
according to grade from among those graded highest in examniation, and the other 
providing that appointments in the departments at Washington shall be apportioned, 
are coordinate, that the observance of each is required, "as nearly as the conditions of 
gobd administration will warrant," and that the provision relating to apportionment is 
not subordinate to the other. It seems to the commission that in the conclusions 
reached in your report to the President the fact has been overlooked that the provision 
of law, ' ' as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant, ' ' applies with 
equal weight to the requirement that selections shall be made from those graded 
highest in examinations and to the requirement of apportionment. Of course if any 
consideration is given to the provision relating to apportionment, the eligibles who 
pass the highest in an examination held throughout the country may not in all cases 
be certified. 

There are, in the opinion of this commission, sound reasons for the continuance of 
the law of apportionment, and as no suggestion to modify or repeal it is made in your 
report, the presumption is that such reasons need not be stated at this time. Recent 
references to the apportionment may be found in the reports of the commission. 

In any plan of certification the fact must not be overlooked that the law clearly 
contemplates eqtial recognition of the two requirements — one for selection from the 
highest in examination and the other for selection in accordance with the 
apportionment. 

A distinction is made between the registers of eligibles having ordinary clerical and 
subclerical qualifications and registers of eligibles with technical, professional, and 
scientific qualifications. In the ordinary registers a difference of a few points in rat- 
ing is not so important as in the case of registers of experts. Nearly every State and 
Territory is represented on the ordinary registers, but for most of the technical registers 
a few States only furnish eligibles. The method proposed by your commission would 
not recognize this distinction, but would make all certifications in the same manner, 
regardless of whether registers are richly supplied with eligibles as in the case of clerk 
registers, or whether the qualifications are unusual. And further, the plan which you 
propose modifies the present method of certifying from technical registers. Under the 
plan adopted May 14, 1910, the commission recognizes the great disparity in the 
number of appointments made from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, 
when compared with other States and provides against the tendency to increased 
excess on the part of other States which have received an excessive share of appoint- 
ments. The plan submitted in your report does not make this distinction, but pro- 
poses that certification be made from all registers, first from those States not in excess 
with averages of from 100 to 85 per cent, and next of eligibles within the same range of 
averaee from all the States in excess, irrespective of the gross disparity in the cases of 
the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Thus an eligible from the District 
of Columbia under the present plan might not soon be reached, if at all. whereas under 
the plan which you propose he would be reached almost in the order of his grade. The 
net result of the proposed change would be an immediate increase in the excessive 
share of appointments to the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and other States 
in excess. 

It is evident, therefore, that much more recognition is given in your commission's 
plan of certification to the requirement of selection from those rated highest than to 
the requirement of selection according to the apportionment, and that eligibles from 
the District of Columbia and States in excess of their quotas would be certified before 
eligibles from States materially in arrears of their quotas, although such ehgibles from 
States in arrears have high percentages. In fact, the plan of yoiu- commission gives 
such slight consideration to the appointment provision of the law that it is believed 
its adoption would be contrary to the statute. 

This commission therefore is unable to agree with the conclusions reached inyom: 
report. The commission has always made a distinction between expert and ordinary 
positions in the matter of certification. Certifications of eligibles for scientific and 
technical positions have generally been made by groups of States, while certifications 
of eligibles for ordinary positions have been made by individual States. Not being 
responsible for the administration of the civil-service act, subordinate officials have 
generally been in favor of practically ignoring the law of apportionment in the matter 
of certifications and appointment of eligibles. Their testimony as to the method oi 
procedure preferred by them can not, of course, be allowed to control. The comniis- 
sion is constantly being called upon to waive the apportionment, without convincing 
reasons being given that such action is in the interests of good administration, and 
without due regard being had to this mandatory provision of the law relating to appor- 
tionment. 



64 APPOETIONMEISTT OF APPOIlSrTMElSrTS. 

Equal recognition of both requirements of the law affecting certification to the 
apportioned service being essential to good administration, the commission after years 
of careful study and after carefully observing the operation of the minute of May 14, 
1910, has adopted a plan of certification for ordinary positions. This plan is a modifi- 
cation of the present plan of certification from the technical registers as outlined in 
the commission's minute of May 14, 1910, and differs therefrom, first, in dividing the 
States and Territories into five groups instead of three, and second, in providing that 
the first step in certifying from the various groups of States in the order of groups 
shall end with percentages as much as 80 instead of 75. The purpose of this plan is 
to give first consideration to eligibles with high averages from States most in arrears. 

The commission is satisfied that with the application of this plan of certification to 
the ordinary registers, such as that for clerk, there will be a freer-use of such registers, 
with the practical result that States in arrears will receive a proportionately greater 
nuinber of appointments hereafter. 

It does not seem either advisable or necessary that this commission refer in detail to 
the proposed report to the President. With reference to Chapter VI, the commission, 
of coiu'se, has an advantage in selection from registers. As soon as papers are rated 
certification can be immediately made to any vacancy on the force of the commission 
while the registers are new. 

As to the certification of a one-armed stenographer and tyj)ewriter, the commission 
does not debar persons with such physical defects from examinations for clerical posi- 
tions in the departments. Because he obtained a rating in examination which entitled 
him to certification in his turn and the commission certified him to some offices should 
not be charged to any fault in administration. Appointing officers are at liberty to 
select one of three names, and are not obliged to appoint any particular one of the 
three certified. The object of a three-name certification is to permit latitude in 
making selection for appointment. His name was not reached for certification in a 
great majority of the requests made for certification of stenographers and typewriters, 
the office of the commission being among the number. During the period covered 
by the table his name appeared on only 18 certificates; it did not appear on the remain- 
ing male stenographer and typewriter certificates, approximately^ 200, 5 of which 
were to this commission. The commission feels called upon to give these data in 
view of the incomplete statistical table relating to this matter contained in the report, 
from which erroneous inferences might be drawn. 

By direction of the commission: 

Very respectfully, John C. Black, 

President. 



PLAN OF CERTIFICATIONS FROM REGISTERS OTHER THAN THOSE FROM WHICH CERTIFICA- 
TIONS ARE MADE UNDER THE MINUTE OF MAY 14, 1910. 

1. Certify the highest eligibles from one-half of the entire group of States and 
Territories that have not received then full share of the total number of appointments 
actually made (if the number of such States and Territories is uneven, take the lesser 
number), and continue so to do until all the eligibles from such States and Territories 
have been certified with average percentages of as much as 80. 

2. After all the eligibles described in (1) above have thus been certified, then 
certify in the same manner from one-half of the remainder of such group of States and 
Territories. 

3. After all the eligibles described in (2) above have thus been certified, then certify 
in the same manner from the remainder of such group of States and Territories. 

4. After all the eligibles described in (3) above have thus been certified, then 
certify as described in (1) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of 
as much as 75. 

5. After all the eligibles described in (4) above have thus been certified, then certify 
as described in (2) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as much 
as 75. 

6. After all the eligibles described in (5) above have thus been certified, then cer- 
tify as described in (3) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of as 
much as 75. 

7. After all the eligibles described in (6) above have thus been certified, then 
certify from the other States, in their order under the apportionment, eligibles with 
an average percentage of as much as 75, down to the two States and the District of 
Columbia having the largest excess of their share of appointments. 

8. After all the eligibles described in (7) above have thus been certified, then 
certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire gi-oup of States in arrears of 
their share, in the order of percentage, who have percentages of as much as 73. 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 65' 

9. After all the eligibles described in (8) above have thus been certified, then 
certify as described in (7) above down to and including eligibles with percentages of 
as much as 73. 

10. After all eligibles have thus been certified with averages as much as 73, down to 
the two States and the District of Columbia that have received the gi-eatest excesS' of 
their share, then certify the highest remaining eligibles from the entire group of States 
and Territories in arrears of their share; and after all eligibles from such group of States 
and Territories have been certified, then certify from each State and Territory in its 
order under the apportionment. 



Appendix C. 

March 25, 1913, 

The United States Civil Service Commission, 

Wahington, D. C. 

Gentlemen: The Commission on Economy and Efficiency has given consideration 
to your letter of January 28, 1913, upon the subject of the report it proposes to make 
to the President relative to certification of eligibles for positions in the departments 
at Washington. 

The statements made by your commission and the plan proposed by it do not 
remedy the evils which this commission believes exist in the present system of certifica- 
tion. In the first place, in your letter of January 28 reference is made to the "appor- 
tioned service" and you quote from the civil-service act certain portions which you 
believe are material in a consideration of the matter of appointments in the "appor- 
tioned service." From this it might be inferred that there was established by law 
an apportioned service, thus making it necessary to take into consideration the needs 
of such apportioned service whenever the civil-service act is being construed. This 
is clearly erroneous. The civil-service act relates to appointments of employees for 
duty in every State, and has no more relation to those in service in the District of 
Columbia than it has to those in service in any other part of the country. Keeping 
in mind this obvious purpose of the law, which is not admitted or referred to in your 
letter, it gives to the civil-service act a somewhat different meaning from that which- 
you place upon it. In other words, the law requires that the rules to be made shall 
provide, as nearly as the conditions of good administration will warrant, for selections 
according to grade from among those graded highest, and also that such rules shall 
provide for the creation of what may be called an apportioned service in the depart- 
ments at Washington. Neither the requirement as to selection from those graded 
highest nor the requirement as to the creation of an apportioned service is an absolute 
requirement of the law. Both are to be covered by rules to be made, and those rules 
are to go no further in carrying out either purpose than the conditions of good atlminis- 
tration will warrant. 

This has been the practical interpretation of the law by the Civil Service Commis- 
sion, for it has from time to time made rules looking to the apportionment of appoint- 
ments in the public service in the departments at Washington, and has excluded from 
such apportionment rules certain positions in the departments. The question is not, 
therefore, one of consideration of "the matter of appointments in the apportioned 
service," as you state it, but one of the extent to which the rules (made from time to 
time and changed as conditions of good administration warrant) shall provide for the 
operation of the apportionment principle upon positions in the departments. 

Taking this view of the civil-service law and having in mind that this is the view 
which is clearly required by the letter and spu'it of the law, and is the view that has 
been accepted and acted upon from the beginning by the Civil Service Commission 
itself, and without question by anyone, it is proper to proceed to the consideration of 
what changes, if any, are requu'ed in the existing rules relating to apportionment in 
order that the conditions of good administration may be advanced and the efficiency 
of the service improved, all being done within the letter and spirit of the law and 
without violating its provisions in any way. 

AVhile the plan proposed by the Civil Service Commission in its letter of January 
28 is a slight improvement over its former method, it does not mend the main evil of 
the present system of certification against which complaint was made, i. e., the 
appointment to the public service of those whose abilities are shown to be of mediocre 
order when others are available whose talents are of a superior order. In a statement 
herewith will be. found a tabulation showing the plan proposed by the Civil Service 
Commission . 

The contention of the Commission on Economy and Efficiency has been that no 
fault is to be found with the civil-service act itself. The language is plain and the 

H. Doc. 50. 63-1 5 



66 APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

meaning clear. The intention of the statute was to promote "good administration," 
and there is nothing in any clause of the law that need be or should be twisted to mean 
otherwise. This commission holds, therefore, that the law is violated when the Civil 
Service (Commission certifies indi\dduals of inferior merit, since the appointment of 
such individuals is clearly not in the interest of '"good administration." The Civil 
Service Commission, on the other hand, ignores the main provision of the law in regard 
to "the conditions of good administration," and holds that the third minor provision 
to be included in rules under this general provision, i. e., the provision that appoint- 
ments shall be apportioned among the seveial States and Territories, must have 
precedence over all other provisions, even when such action is plainly against "the 
conditions of good administration," which is specifically the main provision. The 
Civil Service Commission goes so far as to hold not merely that it is justified by the 
law in appointing to public office people of inferior qualifications, but that it is actually 
required by the law so to do, and it has succeeded in creating that impression in the minds 
of many department officials who would otherwise have complained more frequently 
than they have of the Civil Service Commission's methods. The investigation made 
by this commission warrants the statement that the fault is not with the law, but with 
the erroneous interpretation of it insisted on by the Civil Service Commission. 

In its letter of January 28, 1913, the Civil Ser\-ice Commission quotes the civil- 
service law as follows: 

"And, among other things, said rules shall provide and declare, as nearhj as the con- 
ditions of good administration will v)arrant, as follows: 

■X- ■)«•«■*■* -X- * 

"Second. That all the offices, places, and employments so arranged or to be 
ar'-anged in classes shall be filled by selections according to grade Jrom among those 
graded highest as the result of such competitive examination. 

"Third. Appointments to the public service aforesaid in the departments at Wash- 
ington shall be apportioned among the several States and Territories and the District 
of "Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the last preceding census 
* * * " 

And then says: 

"It will be observed that the two provisions of the statute, one providing for selec- 
tions according to grade from among those graded highest in examination, and the 
other providing that appointments in the departments at Washington shall be appor- 
tioned, are coordinate, that the observance of each is required, 'as nearly as the condi- 
tions of good administration will warrant,' and that the provision ^elating to appor- 
tionment is not subordinate to the other." 

While these two provisions that are to be covered in the rules are coordinate they 
are also absolutely antagonistic to each other and would not be susceptible of har- 
monious enforcement if they were not subordinated to the "good administration" 
clause of the law. The provision requiring selections to be made "according to grade 
from among those graded highest" is in perfect accord with the purpose of the law, 
1. e., "to improve the civil service." On the other hand, the provision requiring 
appointments to be apportioned among the States according to population is opposed 
to "good administration," since rarely does it happen that the eligibles graded highest 
are also from the State having the greatest claim for an appointment. In recognition 
of the conflicting character of these provisions, the framers of the law wisely provided 
that each of these two provisions should be included in rules and not in an inflexible 
law, and should be mandatory only "as nearly as the conditions of good administra- 
tion will warrant," and no more. 

The Civil Service Commission's contention that "the law clearly contemplates 
equal recognition of the two requirements, one for selection from the highest in exami- 
nation and the other for selection in accordance with the apportionment," is clearly 
not the fact, and were it the fact, the law could in the nature of things not he enforced. 
In actual practice the Civil Service Commission does not and can not give equal 
recognition to these two clauses. What it actually does is to give the apportionment 
clause precedence over the competitive clause. 

This commission therefore repeats the conclusions set forth in its report on the 
apportionment, namely, that there can be but one reasonable interpretation of the 
provision of the law relating to apportionment, and that is that as between candidates 
of substantially equal merit the one coming from the State having the fewest residents 
in the service in proportion to its population shall be given the preference; bxit it can 
never be in the interest of "good administration" to appoint the candidate of less 
merit on the mere ground of residence in some particular State. To do so is to put the 
Civil Service Commission in the position to juggle with places in the civil service in 
such a way as to gain political advantage; in other words, to promote the very thing it 
was created to prevent— partisanship in the distribution of offices. 



APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 67 

The Civil Service Commission next objects, in its letter of January 28, to the method 
of certification proposed in the report of this commission on the ground that it would 
make all certifications in the same manner, regardless of whether registers are richly 
supplied with eligibles, as in the case of clerk registers, or whether they are poorly 
supplied because the qualifications demanded are unusual. Under the Civil Service 
Commission's present method a distinction is made between the registers of eligibles 
who have ordinary clerical and subclerical qvialifications and the registers of eligibles 
who have technical, professional, and scientific qualifications. The Civil Service 
Commission holds that a difference of a few points in rating is not so important in the 
ordinary registers as in the case of registers of experts. Since nearly every State and 
Territory is represented in the ordinary registers while only a few States furnish 
eligibles for the technical registers, it holds that it is justified in drawing practically 
all eligibles to merely clerical positions from the States that do not furnish eligibles for 
technical registers. This course might possibly be defended, if it were not against 
the interests of "good administration," as abundantly proved by the tables compiled 
from the actual records in the report submitted by this commission, which show that 
there is a remarkable connection between examination ratings and efficiency records. 

This commission thus finds nothing in the law and nothing in the situation to war- 
rant the distinction made by the Civil Service Commission in certifying eligibles for 
scientific and clerical positions. It is surely no more in harmony with "good admin- 
istration" to certify poorly qualified clerks than it is to certify poorly qualified scien- 
tific assistants. The difference is only one of degree. The law does not warrant 
either, if well-qualified eligibles are available. 

The Civil Service Commission then adds : 

"And further, the plan which you propose modifies the present method of certi- 
fying from technical registers. Under the plan adopted May 14, 1910, the commission 
recognizes the great disparity in the number of appointments made from the District 
of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, when compared with other States, and provides 
against the tendency to increased excess on the part of other States, which have received 
an excessive share of appointments. The plan submitted in your report does not make 
this distinction, but proposes that certification be made from all registers, first from 
those of States not in excess with averages of from 100 to 85 per cent, and next of eligibles 
within the same range of average from all the States in excess, irrespective of the gross 
disparity in the cases of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Thus an 
eligible from the District of Columbia under the present plan might not soon be 
reached, if at all, whereas under the plan which you propose he would be reached 
almost in the order of his grade. The net result of the proposed change would be an 
immediate increase in the excessive share of appointments to the District of Columbia, 
Maryland, Virginia, and other States in excess." 

This commission believes that the Civil Service Commission's present method of 
certifying eligibles for technical and scientific positions, under which every eligible 
in the entire United States is certified down to a bare passing mark of 70 before eligibles 
from the two States and the District of Columbia are certified, is a violation of both the 
letter and the spirit of the civil-service law and wholly contrary to every principle of 
"good administration." The "net result" of the present system is indeed far more 
disastrous than what the Civil Service Commission says would be the "net result" of 
the change proposed in the report submitted by this commission, i. e., "an immediate 
increase in the excessive share of appointments to the District of Columbia, Maryland, 
Virginia, and other States in excess." The "net result" at present is the deliberate 
preference of inefficiency in the public service to efficiency . ' ' Reward for mediocrity " 
is the legend that might truthfully be attached to a very large number of the Civil 
Service Commission's certifications. 

Nor does it follow by any means that there would be an immediate increase in the 
number of people from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia appointed 
to office, if superior efficiency were the sine qua non of admission to the service. It 
only follows in case the Civil Service Commission continues to neglect its obvious 
duty in the matter' of stimulating residents of States that are behind in their quota 
to take the civil-service examinations. It would be possible, for instance, to secure a 
larger and more efficient class of eligibles from the Southern States than is now secured, 
but although the Civil Service Commission must have long been aware that few white 
persons living in Southern States are willing to sit alongside negroes in the same 
examinations, it has never undertaken to solve the matter in a practical way by pro- 
viding separate examination quarters in Southern States for white and black candi- 
dates. The actual result of their neglect to do so is that there are not as many south- 
ern whites on the civil-service registers as might be. 

Interest in civil-service positions would be much stimulated in Western States also 
if Congress would adopt the practice which is followed in the case of enlisted men in 



68 APPOETIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 

the Army and Navy, of paying the expense of transportation of successful candidates 
to the place of employment. A table contained in the report submitted by this 
commission shows that the total cost of transporting the 991 persons appointed in 
1911 would have been from |8,691 to $43,457, depending on whether the amount 
allowed was 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 cents a mile. The expenditure of even $43,457 a year is 
justified on two grounds: (1) It would place the eligibles of all States on an equality, 
and (2) it would increase the attractiveness of the service to the residents of distant 
States and thus aid in securing a more equitable distribution of appointments on merit. 
Until the Civil Service Commission has besought Congress to thus put the residents 
of distant States on an equality with residents of nearby States in the matter of appoint- 
ments to the civil service, it is not justified in lamenting "the excessive share of 
appointments to the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia," etc. Instead of 
thus trying to harmonize the difficulties of the situation with the principles of "good 
administration," it has violated certain parts of the law that are plainly mandatory 
about which there is absolutely no question. Section 3 of the civil-service act dis- 
tinctly says: "Such boards of examiners shall be so located as to make it reasonably 
convenient and inexpensive for applicants to attend before them; and where there 
are persons to be examined in any State or Territory, examinations shall be held 
therein at least twice in each year." In direct violation of this provision the follow- 
ing paragraph, in fat, black type, is found on page 7 of the Manual of Examinations 
for the Fall of 1912, issued by the Civil Service Commission: 

"Residents of the following-named States and District will not be admitted to the 
clerk examination: Connecticut, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Rhode Island, 
Massachusetts, Vermont, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. " 

In the letter of January 28, the Civil Service Commission goes on to make a curious 
statement. First acknowledging that department officials have not generally ap- 
proved of the apportionment clause in the civil-service act, the Civil Service Commis- 
sion declares that "their testimony as to the method of procedure preferred by them 
can not, of course, be allowed to control. " The passage is as follows: 

"Not being responsible for the administration of the civil-service act, subordinate 
officials have generally been in favor of practically ignoring the law of apportionment 
in the matter of certification and appointment of eligibles. Their testimony as to the 
method of procedure preferred by them can not, of course, be allowed to control. The 
commission is constantly being called upon to waive the apportionment, without con- 
vincing reasons being given that such action is in the interests of good administration 
and without due regard being had to this mandatory provision of the law relating to 
apportionment. " 

In answer, it should be pointed out that since department officials are held respon- 
sible for the good administration of the offices to which the eligibles are appointed, it 
is their judgment which should control as to the qualification of eligibles. Surely, the 
civil-service law was intended to improve, not to obstruct the administration of the 
public service, but there is bitter complaint among department officials of the arbi- 
trary manner in which the Civil Service Commission compels the appointment of 
people with inferior qualifications while withholding the certification of others merely 
on the ground that the State in which they happen to reside has received appointments 
in excess of its mathematical quota. 

The Civil Service Commission's explanation of the 18 certifications of the one-armed 
typewriter does not explain. The Civil Service Commission's statement that during 
the year this one-armed eligible was on the register approximately 200 certifica- 
tions were made has nothing to do with the case . The facts are as stated in this com- 
mission's report that, although the Civil Service Commission made 5 certifications to 
itself during the time this one-armed typewriter was in order of certification, the Civil 
Service Commission did not certify him to themselves in a single instance, although his 
name appears on no less than 18 certificates to other bureaus. The tables in this com- 
mission's report show conclusively that the Civil Service Commission does not enforce 
its own rules against itself. The regulations require the certification of 3 eligibles 
in order to give the departments the latitude in selection which the law contemplates. 
In the case of these 18 certificates bearing the name of this one-armed typewriter, the 
certificates might as well have borne but two names, since it is obvious that a one- 
armed man could not by any possibility be an efficient typewriter, and good adminis- 
tration would not warrant his appointment. 

In conclusion, it should be noted that the report submitted by this commission com- 
mended the principle of distributing public offices among the residents of the several 
States and Territories, but it did so on the ground that such distribution is desirable as 
stimulating interest throughout the country in the General Government at Washing- 
ton. The Civil Service Commission, on the other hand, takes the ground that distri- 
bution of public offices amounts to distribution of ]K)litical patronage and must be con- 



APPORTIONMENT OP APPOINTMENTS. 69 

ducted with mathematical exactness. Recognizing the value of having all sections 
of the country represented in the executive departments of the Federal Government, 
it is nevertheless apparent that when choice must be made between two candidates, 
one of whom lives at Rock Island, 111., and the other directly across the Mississippi 
River at Davenport, Iowa, the "conditions of good administration" are served and the 
principle of apportionment is in no wise violated if the candidate chosen is that one of 
the two best qualified for the position, regardless of the fact that his State may be far 
in excess of the other in the number of residents who hold positions under the Govern- 
ment. This interpretation of the meaning of the apportionment rule, subordinate as 
it is to the clause in the law providing for "good administration," commends itself 
especially to the reasonable mind when attention is directed to the fact that Govern- 
ment employees are never called upon, as are Members of Congress, to vote upon any 
public question, sectional or general. They are, indeed, distinctly restrained from 
political activity. An exact mathematical distribution of public offices could serve 
no useful purpose, then, and does actual harm in keeping alive in the minds of the peo- 
ple of the several States the idea that public offices are political spoils or a species of 
lottery prizes, which a certain number of lucky people in every locality have a chance 
to win. Instead, the idea should be inculcated that the public service is an honor- 
able career open to every qualified person in every one of these United States. If any 
State fails to furnish the necessary number of qualified persons, it should be the effort 
of the Civil Service Commission to stimulate the educated element of that State to 
take the civil-service examinations rather than to lower the efficiency of the public 
service by forcing the appointment of poorly qualified persons. 

By the action of the Civil Service Commission, hereinbefore referred to, in excluding 
from the clerk examinations held in the fall of 1912 all persons residing in the 9 States 
and the District of Columbia, it has but emphasized its purpose not to allow such 
persons to enter the clerical service at Washington, no matter how well qualified they 
may be, nor how inferior may be the qualifications of those residents of other States 
who pass the examinations. That purpose is shown also by the action heretofore taken, 
as the Commission on Economy and Efficiency is informed, by which persons residing 
in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia are refused certification after 
passing clerical examinations with high averages, although remaining on the eligible 
list after all persons thereon from all other States have been appointed. The Civil 
Service Commission evidently has decided that there are no "eligibles" on a register 
to fill a call for an employee when the only persons remaining on such register are 
residents of the two States and the District. To carry the rule of apportionment, or 
rather the interpretation of it, to this extent is to defeat an effort at good administra- 
tion, and to make wholly misleading the plan proposed by the Civil Service Commis- 
sion in its letter of January 28, 1913, by which it is made to appear that eligibles in the 
two States and the District are to be certified after all eligibles from other States 
passing at 70 or more are appointed. In practice such near-by eligibles are not ap- 
pointed in any event or under any circumstances. 

By direction of the commission: 

Respectfully, F. A. Cleveland, 

Chairman. 



70 



APPORTIONMENT OF APPOINTMENTS. 



Tabulation showing the Civil Service Commission's modified method of certifying eligibles 
for appointment to all positions in the apportioned service at Washington except those of 
scientific assistant and stenographer and typewriter at a salary of.f!l ,000 a year. 



Order of 
certifica- 
tion. 


States in arrears. 


States in excess. 


First and 
second 


Third 


Foiu-th 
quarter. 


Except Vir- 
ginia, Mary- 
land, and 


Virginia, 

Maryland, 

and the 




quarter. 


quarter. 


the District 


District of 










of Columbia. 


Columbia. 


1 


100-80 
(E. R.) 


X 


X 


X 


X 


2 




100-80 
(E. R.) 


X 


X 


X 


3 


— 




100-80 
(E.R.) 


X 


X 


4 


80-75 
(E.R.) 


X 


X 


X 


X 


5 




80-75 
(E.R.) 


X 


X 


X 


6 


— 




80-75 
(E.R.) 


X 


X 


7 


— 


— 




100-75 
(O.A.) 


X 


S 






^Tn\ 


X 


X 


(to 




7i) 






(E. R.) 








9 


— 




— 


75-73 


X 


10 








(O.A.) 
X 


X 


(73 




70) 






(E.R.) 








11 






— 


73-70 
(O.A.) 


X 


12 










100-70 
(O.A.) 



(E. R.)= Certify from highest on entire register of all States in group. 
(O. A. )=Certify in order of apportionment. 

X=Not in order of certification. 

— = Registers exhausted down to lowest number immediately above. 



o 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



wm 



011 795 904 1 



